An Asian-American Civil War

SCA 5 And Strategic Thinking

The world of Asian-America recently erupted into an epic ideological conflict over Californian aspirations to allow state schools to reintroduce racial criteria (known as SAC5) in their admissions processes. The plans have caused a sharp divide within Asian-America - those who oppose the legislation cite fears that Asian enrollment would be unfairly curtailed as colleges strive for quotas that reflect the balance of the general population, those who support the legislation cite social justice and diversity considerations.

In this post I will not argue for or against the legislation, suffice it to say that whilst I agree that promoting social justice and increasing genuine diversity are the way forward for a racially complex America, I find the idea of affirmative action as advocated by SAC 5 as a means to remedy these issues to be hopelessly insufficient. What interests me about this subject are my observations on the Asian-American commentaries and advocacy for the legislation.

What I find remarkable is that the Asian-American voice on this issue is simultaneously loud but also strangely drowned out and lost in the bigger picture of the debate. It is hard to deny that Asians on both sides of the debate are being extremely vocal about their beliefs, but what seems to be lacking is an imaginative and creative approach to solving the underlying issues that are retarding social justice that contribute to the lack of diversity not just in college admissions, but also in many areas of the socio-economic sphere.

Whilst Asian advocates have been at the forefront of cheerleading for the legislation, I have notice a glaring lack of Asian advocates exploring alternative, ideas for social justice beyond merely relaying the standard tropes of liberal ideology. I am yet to see Asian advocates for social justice who do support the notion of affirmative action in college admissions question whether it actually will have the effect of alleviating the injustices of long-term racialized poverty amongst ethnic minorities. I have doubts, and I am surprised that even those who are passionate about affirmative action seem disinclined to explore the subject beyond what is presented by "higher ups" in the liberal/conservative ideological arena. This is sad because it means that Asians are not actually taking leadership in shaping an Asian-American contribution to the quagmire of racial justice. We are not creating ideological road maps that challenge prevailing wisdoms about how to go about advancing our and other's aspirations for diversity and equality. In short, we are placing ourselves in positions of being mere messengers of other people's and group's ideas.

Much is said about the need for Asian-Americans to step out of the conscientiousness numbing coddling of the model minority stereotype and make a difference in the advancement of racial justice, but in the absence of an innovative road map, where does the inspiration come from that will motivate us to do just that? The conservative/liberal umbrellas under which ideological battles are fought seems to have major holes over the areas where Asians are standing, and many Asians feel that they are invisible in this dichotomy, and I tend to agree. But the answer to invisibility is not to merely shout louder and become the most aggressive cheerleader, but rather to become those who shape the ideological landscape.

One way to think about it is to consider how almost to a person, Asian-Americans will agree that the lack of culturally appropriate Asian images and positive role-models creates problems of identity and sense of exclusion. Likewise, my sense is that in the realm of political action we lack meaningful role models whose approach is original and creative and who inspires ideological identification amongst Asian-Americans. What I mean by this is that - echoing the identity conflicts of Asian-America - there has been a failure of advocates to model an Asian-American political identity that reflects our unique experiences as a minority whose cultures or civilization are viewed as implicitly incompatible, or in existential conflict, with the west. It is almost as though Asian advocates want to parachute Asian faces into the middle of America's political and social landscape without first establishing the unique and specific experiences of Asian-Americans as an autonomous and worthy aspect of that landscape.

What seems to have been the preferred strategy is to act as "persuaders" for the big issues of the day as opposed to the shapers of those issues. Some might suggest that relatively low numbers of Asians makes such an approach practical, but creating original avenues for advocacy does not require large numbers of people - it only requires people willing to question political orthodoxies and look for alternative ways to solve them.

The topical issue of affirmative action in college admissions offers us a clear example of this. At the root of the conflict between the two warring sides is the issue of how the reintroduction of race as part of the admission criteria will affect Asian enrollment. Given the fact of Asian invisibility and general social resentment or indifference towards Asian achievement in American society, the fears that Asians will be unfairly negatively affected by SAC5 in favour of more "likeable" and politically influential minority groups whose achievements are more likely to bolster liberal political careers, are legitimate ones.

Some responses to these concerns have been disappointing to say the least. In what amounts to a smearing tactic, opponents of SAC5 are being labelled as "haters" purveying "lies" by Asian advocates as this piece in the very widely read AngryAsianMan blog (although not written by him) shows. This is sad in a number of ways. Firstly, it is a very childish approach to a very serious problem - "haters"? Really? The only thing missing from the piece is to gloat about "PWNING" the "haters". Secondly, this piece shows a lack of sophistication in Asian-American discourse, and that Asian advocacy also produces second-rate polemics to accompany its lack of creativity.

In conclusion, as I suggested here, people are motivated by inspiration, but, sadly, it seems as though this ability to inspire is what is lacking amongst Asian advocates for social justice. Asian-Americans are often criticized for their supposed political apathy, but the debate over SAC5 has really opened my eyes, and the problem is not that Asians are implicitly placid in politics - that is merely a racist stereotype. Just observe the months of political involvement and protesting in Thailand, labor unrest in Cambodia, rebellions in Burma, and the almost constant protesting in China, as well as the ubiquitous anti-corruption protesting in the Philippines. Asians are not politically apathetic and are quite willing to fight for what they believe in even to the point of dying for their beliefs.

This can only mean that supposed Asian-American political apathy is not the consequence of specific innate racial and cultural qualities of Asian people, but is more likely the result of poor and uninspiring leadership from Asian-American advocates, who sometimes seem to advocate for Asians by ignoring their concerns. Given that proponents of SAC5 are vague in what it entails - at one and the same time it will ensure that college populations are more representative of the demographics of the state, but somehow won't require quotas, the amendment will use race as one of the admissions factors, without telling us what someone's race tells us about their qualities, and most of all, it doesn't tell us how the legislation will improve inter-generational poverty (which is the point of affirmative action) - it is no surprise that Asian-Americans are looking uninspired by the whole idea.

A Modulating Racism

Prosperity, Success, And The Permissiveness Of Racism.

I came across an article in the New York Times that covered the racial experiences of minority groups at the University Of Michigan. What struck me about the piece was one comment by a black admin officer that I thought had significance in the intra-Asian-American dialogue on the model minority stereotype. This is the comment...

We’re clearly not postracial,” said Tiya A. Miles, chairwoman of the department of Afro-American and African studies. “Sometimes I wonder if having a black president lets people feel like that gives them cover. It absolves people of being prejudiced.

An interesting comment that sums up in a nutshell the experience of Asian-Americans.Whereas the the above comment mentions the "success" of having a black president serving as an excuse or cover for prejudice, for Asian-Americans, it is the notion of an economically and educationally high-achieving minority that excuses anti-Asian attitudes - what do Asians have to complain about when they are so successful?

Whereas much commentary focuses on how the minority model stereotype separates us in the eyes of our co-minorities, all too often we miss the fact that the stereotype's primary function serves to render an autonomous Asian voice invisible and downplay the fact that casual anti-Asian racism and hate crimes are regularly committed through derogatory cultural representations of Asians, normalizing such attitudes and further ingraining anti-Asian hostility into the cultural zeitgeist as the normal and acceptable mode of behaviour and conceptualization of Asian people.

While we spend our time decrying how the successes we achieve are an affront to other minorities, we fail to notice that this success - paraphrased as the "model minority" - serves as an excuse to legitimize America's casual cultural racism towards Asian-Americans. Many of the incidents cited by the article of racial intolerance and insensitivity towards black students are mirrored in commonplace experiences for Asian-Americans. In fact, not only are they common, American culture itself brazenly and unapologetically propagates this intolerance flagrantly distilling "Asian" characteristics down to a series of demeaning qualities that are recycled by subsequent perpetrators and even broadcast to international audiences.

Here are some examples of the intolerance cited in the article....

fraternity hosting the party, whose members are mostly Asian and white, had invited “rappers, twerkers, gangsters” and others “back to da hood again.”.....high-profile incidents — including a number of fraternity parties nationwide that have used racist symbols, including watermelons and gang signs....a black student at the State University of New York at New Paltz, shared a photo of a “colored only” sign that had been placed on a water fountain in his freshman year.

What is being described here echoes the kinds of media depictions that Asian-Americans complain about, the difference is that the article is acknowledging that these incidents may reflect an intolerance towards blacks, whereas the media's perpetration of the same kinds of insensitivities and dehumanization of Asians causes few eyebrows to be raised, and scarce criticism save from Asians themselves. Rarely, if at all, is the possibility raised that these intermittent but consistent depictions of Asians might reflect intolerance. The question is; what is the difference between "play-acting" at being a "gangsta" in a college frat-house and play-acting dehumanizing ideas about Asians on the television or movie screen?

One difference is that Asians are a model minority whose educational and economic achievements have enabled anti-Asian racism to find an acceptable avenue of expression - prosperity alleviates the effects of racism, so the prevailing wisdom goes, and, in fact, prosperity itself may reflect a reversal of racist attitudes such that racial insensitivities can be excused because the bottom-line has become the gauge of its prevalence. The logic is flawless and convenient; prosperity is an indicator that racism has diminished, therefore racially demeaning depictions of Asians simply cannot be racist.

The reality is that what the Asian-American experience can offer us - and it is an experience that we often miss in our attempts to distance ourselves from "internalizing" the model minority stereotype - is an insight into the future of all visible minorities who attain some level of prosperity. If we accept that prosperity is the line beyond which racism is judged to have disappeared - when our experience tells us it has not - then we have not really succeeded in changing ingrained racist attitudes, we merely allow them to exist in a more subtle or snide way that enables the permissiveness of racial harassment.

The model minority dialogue must provide more room for the exploration of this phenomenon of prosperity providing the legitimacy for the permissiveness of racial harassment. Instead of framing the Asian-American experience of achieving prosperity as primarily a story of a formerly aggrieved minority's ingratitude or indifference to other minorities who may be less successful than we, perhaps it would behoove us to explore the subtle, grudging, racisms that accompanies prosperity or even merely the appearance of prosperity, and in so doing, highlight the fact that racism does not end once a group has exhibits high college graduation or income levels. 

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.

Fighting For Children's Rights

Helen Gym

I just thought that I would highlight someone whose focus might be - in my opinion - one of Asian-America's most significant issues today. Helen Gym is an Asian woman based in Philadelphia, who although an advocate for school reform in the Philly area, came to my attention back in 2009 when she was instrumental in the advocacy for Asian-American kids who had been suffering severe racially based bullying and harassment.

Her advocacy is significant for two reasons; firstly she is challenging apathetic attitudes towards dysfunction in the school system, and secondly (but most importantly from an Asian-American perspective) she has been, and continues to be, instrumental in defending the casually abused civil rights of Asian kids in Philadelphia High Schools. I have written about the experiences of the Asian kids in South Philly in several previous posts, and, in fact, it was my feeling that there seemed to be little interest in the violence directed at these kids amongst Asian-Americans that motivated me to start a blog. Of course, my writings explore issues beyond this, but it was my sense that there was a dearth in interest not only in the specific events in South Philly High School, but also there seemed to little exploration into the phenomenon of anti-Asian racism in American schools.

More specifically, my interest covers the intersection of Asian depictions and attitudes in American cultural endeavours, and the experience of racially inflected bullying, harassment, and violence that seems almost universal amongst Asians kids going through America's education system to one degree or another. For me, the possibility of universal casual racism perpetrated by non-Asian kids on their Asian peers in schools, ranks as one of the most significant issues that Asian-America needs to address. The reason is simple; if the casual anti-Asian racism (often in the form of casual retributive violence against deindivuated masses) modeled by American culture is emulated or reflected in the behaviours and attitudes of children, then these attitudes may easily form into habits of prejudice that manifest as casual anti-Asian discrimination in adulthood.

Certainly, addressing media racism directly is one avenue for changing this state of affairs, but I also believe that seeking accountability from school admins, teachers, and any other adult involved in the "care" of Asian kids in the school environment warrants some thought. All too often, anti-Asian racism in America's schools is dismissed as merely the actions of ignorant or insensitive kids, or is simply put down to the fact that "kids can be cruel". These might be sufficient explanations under normal circumstances, but, for Asian-American kids, not only are they dealing with "cruel kids", but with a culture that actually models (through media depictions) many of the racist behaviours that they are experiencing. That is a whole different ball-game.

In effect, America's casual cultural racism can only be normalizing the kinds of racist behaviours that are directed at Asian children, and because this process can actually be viewed as a conditioning process, what it means is that negative behaviours and attitudes towards Asian people become and remain ingrained. This is why I think school racism is one of the most important issues that we as a community need to highlight and address.

Killing Us Softly With Words.

Storytelling Asians To Death.

In a previous post I touched upon the idea that Asian "maleness" has, at best, a second-class status in American culture. For Asian men growing up in the US, the stories that American culture tells itself about us are typically demeaning and xenophobic, or combative and hostile. Naturally, many Asian men feel a sense of cultural and social marginalization that their humanity is demeaned, and their masculinity is afforded scarce cultural space to find expression or validation. Subsequently, ideas of masculine identity seem to recur as themes amongst Asian men and with it notions of their "place" and sense of acceptance in this society. One way that culture fosters an inclusive identity is through the narratives of storytelling.

Stories and narratives ground people in culture providing a profound sense of connectedness and identity by offering readers, listeners, or viewers, the opportunity to identify with characters - and the scenarios they find themselves in - so they are able to firmly place themselves into that narrative and hence the culture it reflects, represents, and describes. On the flipside, in order for these narratives to have cohesive power, they must provide a narrative of what this identity does not represent - that is, a set of contrasting qualities that clearly define what they are not equally as strongly as depictions which powerfully reinforce and shape ideas of what they are. Often, this set of undesirable qualities are embodied and visualized in the form of Asian men so, naturally, they perhaps find little sense of inclusion, and certainly little sense of visibility, in this cultural narrative.

One thing is certain, many Asian men feel that there is scarce acceptance of them save for specific situations where they fit the pre-conceived notions of the mainstream (and mainstreamed) community around them. But while Asians have long campaigned against the culture of stereotype and the media that propagates it, new research highlights the degree to which constant, one-sided and one-dimensional, media depictions might profoundly condition society to hold deeply ingrained racist attitudes (and, hence, behaviours) towards Asians. All of this happens through the very simple process of storytelling.

According to this article, new research presents the intriguing possibility that narratives actually create biological changes in a reader or listener......

[after reading a given passage] fMRI....scans showed....heightened connectivity in the left temporal cortex, an area of the brain associated with receptivity for language, on the mornings following the reading assignments.....[and]..Heightened connectivity was also seen in the central sulcus of the brain, the primary sensory motor region of the brain. Neurons of this region have been associated with making representations of sensation for the body, a phenomenon known as grounded cognition. Just thinking about running, for instance, can activate the neurons associated with the physical act of running.

What is not known is how long these changes remain in effect, but if these changes are temporary, it seems reasonable to wonder if a continuous narrative on any given subject might effectively prolong these biological changes.

As stated above, "grounded cognition", is a physical response created merely by thinking about something; if you "think about running, then you can activate the neurons associated with the physical act of running". It should follow that if the majority of narratives about Asians denigrate and dehumanize, then you think of Asians as dehumanized, and as little more than a collection of demeaning and distasteful qualities, and that there would be a corresponding physical reaction of distaste that reinforces the emotional and ethical distancing from Asians with every depiction?

So, given that American culture runs a repetitive narrative that depicts demeaning attitudes and behaviours towards Asians as normal, ethically neutral, or morally justified, it raises the possibility that this is, in fact, an "association" process that ingrains anti-Asian attitudes down to a physical level. This means that if Asians are repeatedly depicted most forcefully and memorably in ways that portray them as a threat and, therefore, as the recipients of justified violent retribution, or as objects of ridicule, then any physically conditioned responses - "gut reactions", if you will, albeit unconscious - would surely be ones of distaste and withdrawal of moral empathy merely as a consequence of this conditioned response.

This is clearly and inadvertently illustrated in an interesting video on YouTube (pertinent part starts at 8:20) in which Chinese-American award-winning journalist - Ti Hua Chang - talks about his experiences trying to make it in the media industry. At one point in his career, he is told - by a well-meaning mentor - that audiences would not embrace him because whenever he sees an Asian man, he has an uncomfortable physical response that he associates with distasteful notions about Asian men.

Other research into the human mind provides us with even more food for thought. According to research done at the Max Planck Institute, decisions (and, therefore, I would presume, responses) are made several seconds before we become conscious of them. That is, whatever conditioning we may have received throughout the course of our lives - and that must include neurolo-physiological conditioning of narratives - must play a role in how we respond to, and make behavioural decisions about, people and things around us. But it is seemingly a mostly unconscious process.

So, human beings become aware of decisions several seconds after they are made, these decisions are thus largely physiological processes (becoming conscious later) and thus probably, at least, in part conditioned by cultural narratives. Such narratives elicit a physical response in listeners, and America's cultural narratives concerning Asians are largely one-sidedly dehumanizing and demeaning. That means that casual, even "jokey", anti-Asian cultural racism has the potential to shape and condition racist behaviours on an extremely profound level, such that it gets to the point that even when Asians are not depicted negatively, the physically reinforced emotional gut-reaction is, because of conditioning, a negative one.

One way that Asians have responded to these demeaning depictions has been to protest racist media narratives, although it has to be said that given the possibilities outlined in this essay, it seems like a terrible mismatch of comprehension to respond to ingrained, physical response-inducing derogatory narratives, with our usual ubiquitous meek challenge of "we're offended". Although this advocacy has been valuable in the extreme, my sense is that there has to be a "second arm" to the struggle against dehumanizing narratives, which consists of a kind of personal responsibility. What I mean by this is that, as individuals, we can take responsibility of our own personal narratives simply because a good way to overcome powerful denigrating stories is to tell better stories about ourselves. Another way of saying this is that fostering creativity (and the narratives it produces) is possibly one of the most powerful avenues to supersede the denigrating narratives that this culture tells about us.

Strangely, the goal here is not to change the minds of people who have, perhaps, barely conscious ingrained racist responses to us, but rather, create an equally powerful ingrained conditioning within ourselves that contextualizes our experiences as men within this society. After all, these derogatory narratives must also leave their mark on young Asian boys growing up in this culture which conceives of them as the embodiment of all that a man should not be. This process would involve creating personal narratives in the form of metaphors that serve as the basis for the kind of heroic "myths" that any conscious being must hold about themselves which serve to provide an all-important sense of transcendent purpose that is integral to the human condition.

That, in a nutshell, is the nature of this culture's prejudice against Asian men - cultural marginalization and its narrative of dehumanization offers scarce space for cultural participation in one of the most fundamental aspects of human life; transcendence myths that are the basis for aspiration, and which assists in the formation of a contextual identity. Oddly, it seems that one of the best possibilities for advocacy for Asian men, comes in the form of simply telling more compelling stories.

H/T Alpha Asian for Ti-Hua Chang video.

Don't Mention The War!

Afro/Asian Solidarity.

There was an old British sit-com that I used to enjoy called "Fawlty Towers", and one of my favourite episodes was called "The Germans". To cut a long story short, the protagonist of the show who runs a seaside hotel, is under so much stress to make his German guests happy and not offend them, that he actually ends up doing just that.

An article on an Asian-American activist blog called "Critical Spontaneity" caught my attention recently because it reminded me of that episode. Titled "Can Afro-Asian Solidarity Exist?", the post sought to address two main issues that the author felt related to Afro-Asian solidarity as brought up by a Twitter conversation on the subject; Asian Anti-Black Racism, and (our old friend!) Asian Privilege.

On Asian anti-black racism....

One of the most salient critiques mentioned was that there can be no solidarity between Asian Americans and African Americans because of the discrimination towards African Americans by Asian Americans. Asian Americans were criticized for profiting off anti-black ideologies and aligning themselves with white supremacist norms............As a group, we agree that this is and has been a serious problem within the AAPI community.

In order to address this issue, the author suggests that we (the Asians) ask ourselves the following...

* Are we simply asking to be accepted and tolerated within a country that has exploited, enslaved, and committed genocide against people of color, or do we seek to reject white appeasement in its entirety? 

* Recent activism and scholarship in Asian American Studies and AAPI communities has been critical of early AAPI movements, which were critiqued for being assimilationist, domestically centered, and for constructing an Asian American subject that was predominantly heterosexual and male, thus ignoring the diversity of AAPI subject identities. From this standpoint, how do we act in order to achieve these more radical goals? 

* Despite the historical differences that AAPI and African Americans have experienced in the U.S., how can we jointly organize around shared interests and goals that speak to investments in civil rights and social justice issues?

My first thought is that I don't see much advocacy for Asians in the above statement of intent - problematic if you are an Asian activism blogger. In fact, there is no advocacy for Asians in the above statement of intent, only unsubstantiated accusations of discrimination perpetrated by Asians that the author acknowledges as being a "serious problem within the AAPI community". With advocates like that, who needs oppressors! Of course, it is untrue - and a little silly - to imply that any lack of solidarity between blacks and Asians is solely the result of rampant serious discrimination on the part of Asians. As a matter of fact, that is itself a racist accusation.

I am being asked to believe that either the black/Asian relationship is in no way partially shaped by anti-Asian racism in the black community, or that anti-Asian racism does not exist in the black community. Both of these ideas are nonsense, but somehow the quest for solidarity between the two groups requires that even though this racism almost certainly exists, I am required to pretend that it does not. This is a poor basis upon which to build a healthy coalition of advocacy. No relationship ever worked out when one of the parties had to deny a significant aspect of their life experience, and hence their identity.

Oddly enough, this approach is actually a kind of "closeting" of the Asian experience of black racism,  like the kid who is molested by his or her father and is then told by the mother not to say anything to anyone because to do so would break up the family. Yes, it is that sick. I actually can't help but get the feeling that some activist's concern lies more in earning street cred and being "down with the homies" than any real drive to explore the issue of solidarity in a meaningful way that is less agenda-driven.

A good example of this is the second point in the list of contritious acts that Asians must undergo so that Asian-American activists can save face in the eyes of their black activist cohorts. According to Park (the blog author is named Suey Park), early AAPI movements have been judged to have been less credible than previously thought because they have been found guilty of being assimilationist. Park doesn't mention any names, but it seems to me that early AAPI movements were far more radical than the present crop, whose radicalism, ironically, seems to consist of steering the assimilation ship into blackness and away from the white, yet still, frustratingly, devoid of an autonomous Asian-ness. So, instead of the invisibility of assimilation into whiteness, we should become invisible within blackness. Either way, we remain invisible but instead of downplaying white anti-Asian racism - which many of us do in order to prosper - we should downplay black racism. I suppose that could thought of as a form of equality.

By way of conclusion....

As a group, we reject the historical racisms perpetuated against the black community in the United States and call on our community to deeply interrogate the reasons behind these racisms, and to find ways to combat it. Without this, we will not be able to achieve any form of solidarity with other people of color.

That is a tall order. Asians - as a general observation - don't even deeply interrogate the reasons behind anti-Asian racisms (as evidenced by the article under review) let alone find ways to combat it. But even more naive is the idea that in order to prove themselves, Asians can brainstorm and find a solution to something that very smart people have been working on for a very long time and for the most part come up short - how to combat racism. There is a tragedy about this way of thinking - not unlike the idea of the Chinaman's chance - in which a bar is set so high in the full knowledge that it can never be reached.

But there is a deeper problem with Park's piece; solidarity amongst Asians themselves is nebulous to say the least, and we have not really figured out how to create that solidarity between the various Asian ethnic groups, classes, genders, and generations. In fact, some of these demographics seem to be at odds or warring with each other on a regular basis with no real coming together in sight. There probably cannot be Afro/Asian solidarity because there is not really an Asian solidarity, even on seemingly fundamental issues like our experience of racism. I would like to hear more ideas on how Asians can resolve their own lack of solidarity before I can be sold on the the efficacy of Afro/Asian solidarity. If Asians the issue of solidarity is not resolved, then how am I supposed to believe that the points suggested in the article are feasible?

Having said that, one way that we could approach solidarity with black America is to speak about our own experiences of racial victimization, with the expectation that these experiences will be respected instead of being minimized as secondary to, and less credible forms of suffering than, the greater suffering of black Americans. And this is not being facetious. Understanding between peoples emerges out of a genuine dialogue in which both parties are honest about who they are, what they have experienced, and what they want. If we are required to be silent about black anti-Asian racism in order to be accepted, then that is not real solidarity, that is merely an unhealthy relationship. You can observe this unhealthiness taking shape in the second part of the article that deals with Asian privilege.

When writing about Asian privilege, Park is eager to deny its existence but, for me, whether it actually exists is less important (hardly important at all, in fact) than why the accusation of its existence exists. A feature of anti-Asian racism is that its credibility is questioned. That is to say that anti-Asian prejudice is downplayed, and given secondary significance to racism experienced by any other minority group and even perhaps to racism experienced by white people. The reasoning is that Asians are successful (really?) so talking about anti-Asian racism is unnecessary. But this is just plain silly.

If we abided by this reasoning, then any ethnic minority individual should lose their right to complain about racism once they reach a certain income level. This means that only poor people can complain about racial prejudice - so when someone like Forest Whitaker cries racism we should all remind him of his wealth and how much privilege this affords him and tell him to live with it. Of course, this just isn't done - except when Asians are the victims.

So, what this means is that calling on Asian privilege is merely another way of normalizing anti-Asian prejudice - by deflecting attention away from our experiences of racism, and downplaying their impact on the basis that it is offset by high average incomes. Citing average incomes are the dishonest but popular way of delivering this form of anti-Asian racism, particularly in the oppression Olympics. No, if high incomes lessen the impact of racism - as Asians are often told it does - then it should lessen the impact for every minority individual who has a high income. Defending against notions of Asian privilege gives the nonsensical basis for the accusation far more seriousness than it deserves. If someone wants to play the privilege card, then that is often tantamount to using a racial slur against us.

In summary, any movement towards Afro/Asian solidarity is doomed to failure if the marriage is based on one side denying its experience whilst taking the blame for all the pathologies in the relationship. Even more problematic is the fact that without Asians experiencing solidarity amongst their own disparate groups, we don't actually have a good model upon which to conceive of a healthy solidarity with any other group. We don't need to own or defend our "privilege" because no other minority individuals who have achieved economic success are required to do so, and neither is any suggestion made that economic success makes such individual's experience of racism any less significant.

Furthermore, as I alluded to here this idea of declaring contrition for privilege, makes for good rhetoric, but poor inspiration. This is because other factors - like compassion, a sense of justice, and empathy - are more likely to foster solidarity than the simplistic jingoism of accusing random Asians of privilege and demanding that they seek atonement for it at the altar of black suffering. That approach is doomed to failure.

The Language Of Inspiration...

...And Asian-American Feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I'm Not Chinese Or Japanese!

Pan-Asianism - Not So Scary, Not So New.

In a previous post I suggested that Asian male athletes, for some reason, have served as occasional catalysts for spontaneous expressions of unity amongst Asian-Americans, and that this suggests that Asian male empowerment is an essential component in establishing a uniquely Asian-American identity. One of the commenters on that post made mention of the idea of Pan-Asianism, which I suppose was something implied in that post, given the idea of Asian-Americans "cross-referencing" their identification with different ethnicities.

A commenter made the following comment which I thought was probably fairly representative of what many Asian-Americans feel.....

I used to dislike the concept of "Asian Americans." I was proud of my ethnicity, but I didn't like the idea that I should feel some kind of kinship with, say, a Taiwanese and a Filipino just because we were "Asian," an identity that's been dictated to us by White Americans.

I have also had this feeling - frustrated that my experience was defined by who I was not, rather than who I was. That is to say, that the idea of "Asian" as represented by the plethora of stereotypes and xenophobic hostilities deriving largely from fears of growing Chinese or Japanese economic and political muscle. As an Asian of non-Chinese or Japanese origin, I felt that part of my struggle was to assert my separateness from these concepts of Asian-ness, by, perhaps, asserting the "different-ness" of the various Asian ethnicities and cultures and blah, blah, and so on and so forth. But I learned pretty early on in my early teens that this approach is actually disempowering and sets one on a path of constantly tweeking the perceptions of those around you without actually addressing the main issue of the implicit and explicit dehumanization that such attitudes carry with them.

Some respond by downplaying or rejecting commonality in favour of an assertion of specific identity (most of us have probably done this), but some also respond by decrying the very notion of "Asia" as an identifier or even as an entity, and suggest that "Asia" is merely a Western concept that implicitly denies agency of Asian peoples to self-identify. Strangely, whilst I think that both of these ideas are fair reactions that have a place in the dialogue, as well as reflect (in the case of the use of the term "Asia") a historical reality, they might well be an incomplete way of understanding Asian identity and the Asian historical narrative.

Whilst it is definitely true that the term "Asia" is a western designation, that in no way changes the fact that prior to western involvement in the region, there existed a healthy and vibrant state of interaction between Asian peoples and nations which involved an exchange of cultures, languages, and ideas. Naturally, conflicts and wars took place between these people, but just as importantly, philosophical and religious ideas spread across the region between Asian countries carried by ancient trading routes, which also saw the movement of peoples between nations. Aside from being historically interesting, the point here, is that this fact of a regional commonality, defined by peaceful exchanges of ideas, and driven by vibrant trade, existed for centuries before the west showed up to teach us our place in the world.

It is well known that Chinese merchants and their families were settling all over SouthEast Asia (and, apparently, without the ethnic strife we see today) for centuries, Indian influence throughout SouthEast Asia shaped language, culture and religion, interactions between India and China over the centuries paved the way for the exchange of world-changing philosophical and religious ideas and their dissemination. Asians have been interacting and influencing each other for centuries. This is not to say that there were any notions of an "Asia" with a specific identity - there may have been, but history has not really explored this possibility - but it is to say that Asian cultures were influencing each other, and learning about each other such that it might be possible to suggest that without western colonial aggression, a more cohesive notion of regional commonality could have developed, and with it, a regional identity.

The point is this; just because "Asia" is a term that has been foisted on the region by imperial powers, it does not mean that the idea of commonality, the possibilities of union, or the history of cross-cultural and ethnic relations should be overlooked or rejected. In a culture that conceives of Asians as de-individuated and their cultures as fundamentally interchangeable, it might seem expedient or necessary to want to challenge these notions as a way of asserting identity, and this may well be appropriate in some cases. The issue is that doing this often misses the opportunity to assert an even greater truth; Asian identity, commonality, and inter-relations, pre-date western interference, and thus removes from the consciousness - derived from the habit of colonial thinking - the very powerful notion that the modern Asian "identity" is in some ways an entirely western invention. This notion is a distortion of history and since the historical experience is one of the most important pillars of cultural endeavour, and hence identity, not taking ownership of this history when the opportunity arises, is tantamount to impeding the development of an Asian-American culture. It is the anxieties of racist xenophobia that has rendered suspicious or undesirable any commonality between Asian cultures and ethnicities

This highlights just how insidious are the effects of anti-Asian racism; the implicit dehumanization of identifying an entire region of diverse people as merely "Asian", leaves many an Asian reacting in such a way that implicitly downplays the very thing that they should be celebrating - any sense of commonality between varying nations and cultural groups that moves people towards greater mutual understanding and respect is surely a good thing.  Another way of saying this, is that Asian-Americans, in addition to being made to feel ashamed of their own race, are also made to feel ashamed of their historical connection and inter-relatedness with neighbouring peoples and cultures. In turn, this means that Asian-Americans are quite possibly conditioned to be suspicious of their own historical experience, but worse, be suspicious of a process of unity that when applied to Western nations (union of Europe and US/European "commonality") is viewed with great pride that union and recognition of commonality leads to peacefulness and prosperity.

For Asian-Americans - a group whose loyalties are often casually called into question - it could well be that the idea of supporting a strong, independent, and co-operative Asia runs counter to our claims of being true and loyal Americans. But this only makes sense if it is accepted that Asia, Asian prosperity, and Asian cultures, are implicitly and irrevocably doomed to be incompatible, and at odds, with the western cultures which we call home and to which we are truly loyal. Yet, given that modern western thought and the secular Enlightenment that brought it about were influenced heavily by Confucian, humanist, ethics, and thought, belies this notion of incompatibility. Additionally, the adoption and great affection in the west for Buddhist teachings and practices further casts doubt on these ideas. No, incompatibility is not a reasonable argument, and there are no reasosns why a prosperous, united Asia, would, or should be even considered to be an insurmountably threatening entity - unless of course, there are other, racially xenophobic considerations to take into account.

My point is that I see no reason why as an American of Asian descent I should not be as proud or motivated to encourage my country - America - to support and welcome "Pan-Asianism", or Asian union, as much as it supports and welcomes European unity. Unity in Europe has brought unprecedented peace and unprecedented prosperity - surely Asians should work towards this goal also, and Americans of Asian descent even more?

Of course, it is precisely because America seems to see itself as engaged in an existential battle with Asian economic might that it views Asian unity as a problem, and this stance may well be the result of irrational xenophobia. But perhaps that could be a significant contribution that Asian-Americans make to the culture of America that through our acceptance of the historical commonality of Asian peoples and cultures, and the development of this notion through an autonomous culture, we can pave the way for an America that is less parochial in its Euro-Centrism.

Asian Guy VS White Girls

Are Asian Men Under-Valuing Themselves?

I came across this YouTube video and it reinforced my beliefs about the self-talk of Asian dudes......



As you can see, the guy wanted to find out if women - white women in this case - were truly as disinterested or closed to dating an Asian guy as we have all heard they are supposed to be. As you can see, at least enough women showed sufficient interest to provide enough material to make a video!

I understand that a YouTube video is not a scientific study with controls and what not, but it does cast some doubt over some of the ideas that Asian-American men have internalized about themselves. Namely, that we are fated to be losers in romance. Yes, it is true that American culture propagates denigrating beliefs about Asian men, but it is not unusual to hear Asian guys blaming their personal lack of success with the ladies on this fact, when, perhaps, there may be grooming or self-confidence issues which they have overlooked.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that America's cultural dehumanization of Asian men does not have repercussions, I'm merely saying it can become too easy to use that as an excuse to either, not try so hard, or not try at all, before pronouncing defeat. That is an attitude that I think Asian men cannot afford. I think what I'm trying to say is just try and if it doesn't work, then move on and try again

The Unified Voice.

Asian Men And Forging The Asian-American Identity.

I recently read an entry from the AngryAsianMan blog about a charity drive by Asian-American artist (of Taiwanese descent) and entrepreneur named Martin Hsu who produces a selection of art-related goodies for sale at his online store. The charity drive was in support of the victims of typhoon Haiyan. All sales of his signature "Dragon Boy" t-shirt will be donated to the Doctors Without Borders typhoon relief fund - furthermore, total sales of the shirt will be matched by Hsu and also donated to the fund. Offer ended at Thanksgiving, so those who participated are appreciated.

Aside from the kudos for the generous humanitarian effort, one thing has struck me about this Asian disaster and others like it and the responses of Asian-Americans to them. I'm relying solely on perception here, but it seems that regardless of the particular nation that has been struck by a disaster - Japanese or Indonesian tsunamis, the Sichuan earthquake of 2008, and now Haiyan - Asian-Americans respond, for the most part, as though they have a personal "connection" to those who have become victimized.

This is especially obvious if or when such tragedies have been accompanied by gloating racist outbursts on social or other media, as was the case with the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, the Japanese tsunami of 2011, the Sichuan earthquake, and even the Haiyan disaster. In all of these cases, the response of Asian-Americans seemed to suggest a "broadening" of specific ethnic identities and identifications, and a more expansive sense of an "Asian" identity" and identification.

But it is not only in the aftermath of disasters that the "boundaries" of ethnic identification seem to become more permeable. Successful or high profile Asian and Asian-American sportsmen like Manny, Jeremy Lin, Ichiro Suzuki, Yao Ming, and perhaps even Kristi Yamaguchi, have been supported and identified with by all Asian ethnicities in the US who may, perhaps, feel as though they are represented by people who look like them in a mainstream where Asians are typically invisible. As a Filipino, I certainly feel a sense of pride whenever I see Manny in action in the ring, but I also have equal investment in seeing Taiwanese-American Jeremy Lin succeed, hoping that his success will have a trickle down effect on the American psyche and create a shift in attitudes towards all Asians regardless of ethnicity.

To me, this represents a rudimentary notion of an identity - a sense of commonality of aspiration and experience that somehow causes a unity of sorts. What is interesting is that there seems to be little expression of commonality between ethnic groups apart from unity in the face of tragedy (and I include racial violence in this category), during protests against racist cultural depictions, and in support for Asian athletes. To me, this is a different way of saying that there seems to be no unifying culture that knits various Asian-American ethnicities together in the same way that support for an Asian sportsman might. Aside from the unifying force of tragedy, it is pretty much only via athletes that Asians (of all genders and ethnicities) have expressed or had the sense of the notion that, "yes, that represents me".

The same cannot really be said of Asian artists or other cultural figures. Certainly, there have been Asian-American cultural figures whose ideas have galvanized sections of the community (sometimes against each other!), but it seems predominantly through athletes that Asians most exuberantly express a sense of commonality. But most interestingly of all, is that it is Asian male athletes who have most forcefully been the source of this unifying force.

In view of my previous post, in which I outlined the apparent discomfort that some within ouır community have with both an empowered, specified Asian male voice, and the exploration of Asian masculinity and male sexuality, this idea of Asian male athletes being the driving force that seems to unite the community presents us with something of a dilemma; whilst Asian athletes - predominantly male - with displays of masculine prowess in their field of competition, have been the figures around whom Asian-Americans feel empowered to claim as their own regardless of ethnicity, there is an apparent counter-current that views Asian masculinity either with some distaste, or a focus on the Asian male voice as an incomplete inquiry unless it defers to other issues simultaneously.

As I suggested here Asian male sportsmen - just like black sportsmen overcoming segregation in years past - are necessarily on the forefront of the fight to shift cultural attitudes and beliefs about Asian men. Coupled with the fact that Asian male sportsmen have - observably - been the fulcrum around which Asians have rallied to raise their voices in support, and with whom many have identified, this idea that Asian masculinity and male voice are somehow threatening or is an incomplete area of discussion in and of itself, can be viewed as being ultimately a handicap on the empowerment of the entire community. Displays of Asian masculinity unify - this is observably true - so it follows that exploration of the Asian male voice, and its empowerment in its own right, is essential to unifying Asian-America.

The interesting thing is that this unifying phenomenon reinforces the commonality of the "Asian" piece of the Asian-American identity - somewhat different from the usual drive to define our American-ness and highlight the "American" half of the label.

What About Us?

Well.....What About You?

It is somewhat amazing that in the two years or so since Wesley Yang wrote his piece for the New York magazine and I'm still deriving so much rich material from it to post about! Perhaps it is the general dearth of Asian men being given opportunities to voice strong opinions in mainstream outlets that may explain my continued revisiting of the one that stands out the most.

My original opinions on Yang's piece were critical, but I noticed an interesting phenomenon in some other responses to his piece - the fact that he had actually chosen to focus on Asian men seemed to be a source of criticism. Despite all the issues that I had with Yang's piece, the one positive that I took from his piece was that he had focused on Asian-American men. I don't think he should have been criticized for that - although I did not agree with much of what he wrote, the fact that he chose to focus specifically on Asian men is in and of itself not a good reason to criticize his piece. But some critiques seemed to find Yang's Asian-male-centric focus to be problematic.

A response piece written in Slate magazine by Nina Shen Rastogi at the time offered some valid criticisms of Yang's piece, and then threw in this somewhat leading remark in the second paragraph...

As the accompanying  Yang, recent college grad Jefferson Mao, restaurateur Eddie Huang, and "pickup artist" J.T. Tran make clear, this essay gazes up at that woody canopy from a decidedly male perspective. The 9,000-word piece profiles several young Asian-American men but there is only one woman — a marketer for IBM — who emerges as anything near a character, though she's far less vividly drawn than any of the males. What's more, male sexual inadequacy is a consistent theme in Yang's lament: Failing to master the nuances of American masculinity is portrayed as a key part of the Asian-American experience. (On the question of where that leaves us Asian-American women, Yang is silent.)

The fact that the above comment occurs in the second paragraph might suggest how important it was to Rastogi to point out that Asian women did not feature in Yang's piece. To me this is a bizarre and perhaps, petty, criticism; Yang's piece is about the Asian male experience, and that is worthy of focus and attention in and of itself without having to be all-inclusive. How mentioning Asian women in the piece might perhaps lend greater credibility is never explained by Rastogi.

The emboldened part of the criticism is especially perplexing. Asian men's masculinity issues - that is, America's cultural dehumanization of Asian men - is a key part of the Asian-American experience. Where that leaves Asian women is really up to Asian women to explain, and Rastogi would have done better to, perhaps, put forward her own ideas on this instead of offering pointless, insinuative criticisms that seem to be little more than discomfort that there exists an Asian male experience that need not require the presence of Asian women to give it validity. The fact is, Asian men have their own set of issues relating to race, or otherwise, that are deserving of their own space and opportunity for investigation and which is necessarily independent of Asian women's issues. Why this disturbs folks is beyond the scope of this piece to explain.

In another critique, which I found to be insightful overall, an Asian male blogger at a space called "Scattered Speculations" offers similar criticisms....

I ask this, following Vijay Prashad’s wonderful book The Karma of Brown Folk, because I think what Asian Americans (I hesitate to say “we” here) seem to constantly miss is how much discourses of “Asian American success” and “model minority” are used (not necessarily by us at first) for the reproduction of the American racial strata whose logic and raison d’etre is anti-Black, and largely sexist. (I need not remind you all the racist figures of “welfare queen” that began under Reagan and came to a boiling point in Bill Clinton. It is he who ended welfare after all.) And most importantly, how Asian American men benefit from this. More than anything, I’m troubled by Yang’s utter ignorance of this fact. There is no mention of African Americans or women. Hence, his piece is littered with stories about Asian American men’s inability to get what white men get—whether it be in the realm of college admissions, professional mobility, or white women. (It is on this last point that I find the non-mention of Asian American women, even just an aside, to be rather odd.)

The author of that blog - a dude named Sam Han - ups the ante in the above comment, calling Yang out for not mentioning African-Americans as well as women as, perhaps, being more harmed by the model minority stereotype and notions of Asian-American success. But, again, the implication is that Asian men's experiences don't have a legitimate claim for specific focus and that such issues are devalued without a wider context. This is like having your child repeatedly come home from school with a bloody nose, asking him or her to explain what happened and how he or she feels about it, but then criticizing the answer because they fail to mention how their bloody nose affects their classmates.

But even more problematic in the Han criticism is that it, ironically, fails to notice that many stereotypes bring benefits to varying degrees to those who are stereotyped based on one's position on the political spectrum. Asian women "benefit" from the stereotype of being passive and submissive (that is, "safe"), by being more readily accepted - at least as media figures - than Asian men, and perhaps even more so than black women. African-Americans benefit from America's suspicion of Asians by being more associated with being "American" - that is, black loyalties are rarely questioned.

Worst of all, Han's criticism implies that Asians are somehow required to answer for stereotypes that they had no role in creating. I don't think that we are required to answer for stereotypes that others create about us, especially when - as I pointed out here - it is questionable the actual degree to which the model minority stereotype actually informs government social policies, and it is mostly Asians themselves who seem to be the one's most likely to talk about it these days. More importantly, the model minority myth hurts Asians more than anyone else - a fact that gets lost in our drive to perform damage control the effects on other groups of a stereotypes that we did not create. No, it is ridiculous to insist that a discussion on the specific issues that affect Asian men should have an "all-inclusive" element. The subject is worthy of attention in and of itself, without the need to apologize for its existence.

Although it may not be the intention of the two critics above, the result of such criticisms is that it insists that Asian men's issues (and, strangely, by extension all Asian issues) are more credible or even valid only if they don't somehow only focus on Asian men. This is tantamount to saying that the Asian male voice cannot speak on its own behalf specifically, but must highlight related issues along the way. If we were to follow this policy, it would mean that Asians can have no credible autonomous voice, and that Asian men's issues are only valid relative to the issues of other oppressed groups. That is a dangerous way of thinking. Albeit unintentional, this way of thinking is actually a classic Red Herring type approach that is usually used by those opposed to any minority voice.

Occasionally, the apparent drive to tamper with and temper the Asian male experience manifests in snide ways. In an article from earlier in the year, Slate writer, Anne Ishii, offers a somewhat eye-rollingly derisive review of a biography called "Fresh Off The Boat" by Asian-American provocateur (of sorts), Eddie Huang. Ishii's review seems to go a step further and instead of insisting that there be no focus on Asian men, she seems to haughtily find the whole process of Asian men blindly sorting their way through pervasive racist stereotypes to be distasteful - who do Asian men they think they are, indeed?! In fact, it is almost as though Ishii is embarrassed that Huang has a racialized masculinity - as though it is his fault - and she is somehow losing face because of it.

In short, Asian men's stories - just like any other demographic - are significant in their own right without having to be vehicles for other oppressed groups. Yes, there is a time and place for that kind of crossover work, but given the dearth of Asian men's points of view in the mainstream, it seems petty (and repressive) for people to insist that what little time we are afforded to present a specific Asian male perspective must be shared with others who may, in fact, already possess greater opportunities and avenues to recount their experiences than Asian men could even hope for.

For all of the criticisms that have been levelled at Wesley Yang's piece, the most unexpected (and pointless) is that he was somehow at fault because he focused on issues specifically from the perspective of Asian men. Criticizing this further marginalizes Asian men, and represses their opportunities to have an autonomous voice within American culture.

A-Town Boyz Movie

Asian-American Gangsters Of Atlanta.

I just read about this on the AngryAsianMan blog. A woman named Grace Jung is part of a production team that is making a documentary about Asian-American gangsters in Atlanta. The documentary was made under the direction of award-winning director Eugene Lau, and began production with the help of a grant from Spike Lee. Writing on a website called "Thought Catalog", Grace explains why this particular subject matter...

Why Asian American Men?.......Nobody ever asks for their point of view; Asian-American males are a neglected group in our society. The subjects of our documentary are all male, Asian American and either from or currently based in Atlanta. Our subjects have a diverse background but share some similarities: raised by immigrant parents who worked long hours (parental neglect at home) and lacked the knowledge to navigate the educational systems due to the language barrier (extra pressure on the children to figure things out alone at a very young age), and struggled with racism in their schools where Asian Americans were taunted for their looks, language, culture, etc.

Hey, someone is listening! Then Jung goes on to explain further some of the factors for the alienation of these young Asian-American men...

The main point we’re addressing with subjects like these is that they felt unheard and misunderstood by everyone. The lack of proper role models at home, school and in the media (a general lack of real Asian faces that are not embarrassing all of Asian Americans by perpetuating undesirable stereotypes that are easy to poke fun at or laugh at), these young men felt let down and alienated.

I don't think I could have put it better myself. This idea of alienation - bizarrely, a word I hardly ever see being used to describe the Asian-American experience - is a recurring theme in my writing. Although this documentary focuses on a specific demographic (Asian youth joining gangs), I would add that many Asian men from all demographics experience a similar sense of alienation from society for the same reasons that these young men do; a culture that normalizes derogatory ways of thinking of and behaving towards Asians (particularly Asian men) and that neither offers few images of a healthy, dignified, culturally appropriate Asian masculinity, nor fosters an inclusive cultural identity for young Asian-American men.

Anyways, I am looking forward to the movie, here's the trailer......





And here is the documentary's website...

http://www.atownboyzmovie.com/

Support this movie when it comes out.

Lifting The Veil

The Impact Of  Stereotypes...

I came across an interesting and funny article written by a Caucasian woman named Sarah Shaw in which she writes about Asian stereotypes that she had been exposed to in the US, and which she bought into. Similar to the experiences of another American woman whom I wrote about, here, when this woman actually got to be around Asian men in an environment where the culture did  not bombard her with denigrating images and beliefs about them, she was suddenly able see that Asian men could be viable partners, and that she could be and was sexually attracted to them. Prior to moving to Seoul, she was convinced that she just wasn't attracted to Asian men and would definitely not be dating them.

This is what she writes.....

While growing up in a homogeneous white town, it was a standard perception that Asian men just weren’t attractive. I’m embarrassed to admit that I once mentioned to an friend, “Asian girls are so attractive, but I don’t find Asian guys attractive at all.” I can’t even believe I would make such a blanket statement about about an entire race of men, but now, I am fully aware that the American media vastly influenced my perception.

This is interesting for a number of reasons. Growing up in a homogeneous white town, the most likely source of her aversion to Asian men would certainly not have been based upon personal acquaintance. Shaw acknowledges that it is most likely media influences that shaped her ideas about Asian men. Sometimes Asian men (and women) are chided for seeming to place an unreasonable significance on how the popular media portrays us, yet  the fact that individuals can form belief systems that they may consider an accurate representation of reality based entirely on what the media says, illustrates its potential to shape attitudes for both positive and negative outcomes. Shaw continues....

In Western pop culture and Hollywood movies, Asian men are often de-sexualized, usually fitting into one of three roles: The asexual math geek or computer nerd; the funny ugly guy with a thick foreign accent that everyone laughs at; the badass ninja, samurai or any other type of martial artist in traditional Asian garb clutching a sword.

There you have it; popular cultural notions can and do act as a surrogate for real-world experience and foster the formation of beliefs in much the same way that real-world experience might. When you factor in conditions like one-sided depictions combined with limited personal exposure to Asians, the effects can evidently be dramatic and people can formulate a worldview and a set of beliefs about a group of people without even coming into contact with them much, if at all.

Having moved to Seoul and apparently freed from the prejudices of American popular culture, Shaw began to find plenty of dating material amongst the men of Korea, but found herself beset by confused disbelief  of friends back home at her decision to date Asian men. Citing a steady stream of stereotypes gleaned from knowledge gained via popular cultural depictions, Shaws friends express incredulity that she could date Asian men.Sadly (but perhaps not surprisingly), Shaw also encountered several Asian-American women who also expressed prejudiced attitudes towards Asian men. Noting the unique affection of Asian gender dynamics, she says.....

I’ve also met several Asian-American women who stereotype Asian men. “Someone’s gotta love the Asian men! I only date white guys,” one of my friends said last year, after I told her about the guy I was dating.

Nice. Shaw finishes with this...

No, I don’t have yellow fever (okay, maybe a little) and I don’t necessarily have a “thing” for Asian men. I’m not attracted to the Korean guys that wear BB cream and carry designer purses, but I do like smooth skin and silky black hair.

I emboldened that last sentence because it highlights something that Asian-American guys never seem to tell themselves - they possess physical qualities, like silky black hair and smooth skin, that many women find attractive. The reason may be that, unlike in Asia, Asian-American guys grow up smothered by societal messages propagated via the media, that tell them they are clownish weaklings and ugly. We talk often about how brainwashed Asian women are by the media, but I think we have to acknowledge that Asian men are brainwashed as well - many of us believe what the media says about us (even though we would deny it). Many Asian men believe that they are disadvantaged because they have either internalized prevailing stereotypes about themselves, or they feel that the sheer weight of culturally normalized prejudice is too massive a hurdle to overcome as an individual.

This latter point is understandable, because profoundly ingrained racial stereotypes are held in place by peer pressure - once an idea sticks, it's "veracity" is upheld by social habit and custom. Forget everything you have heard about the western character being one of individuals not swayed by social conditioning, and too individualistic to be pressured into conformity. That's nonsense. White people do conform, but they just often don't know it, or simply won't admit it. The Shaw article and others like it are a testament to this - once people leave the confining circumstances of their own cultural prejudices, and are away from the peer-pressure of it, they suddenly feel free to actually exercise their individualism and go against the grain of their culture's beliefs.

In another article that illustrates how cultural conditioning holds Asian men back, a Dutch blogger describes how her visit to the Phillipines was something of a shock...

[In the Phillipnes there was] Head-turning when walking by, men extending a friendly hand to me while my male partner was ignored and Filipino’s calling me miss sexy despite the fact that my male partner was right beside me. The weirdest incident happened when a child I would guess to be about 7 years old walked by me and said: hey sexy (by the way, what do you reckon, nature or nurture?)

Nowhere in American culture have I ever seen any Asian men being shown to be so brazenly flirtatious, or brazenly sexual. Even Filipinos in the US don't have that reputation - as far as I know. My take is that this aspect of Filipino culture - and I would guess, the sexuality of men from other Asian cultures - gets lost in translation during the migration process. Of course, being bombarded with denigrating images via the media probably contributes significantly to this process.

So whilst it is true that stereotypes probably do shape many people's attitudes towards Asian men, it is equally probable that Asian men don't help their own situation because they too might down talk themselves. My sense is that it need not take an entire cultural revolution for Asian men to seem more attractive - I think that individuals can make an impact also, probably just by starting to think differently about themselves.