My Favorite Jeremy Lin Pun

Here It Is.......

I first saw this via the Asian Athletes blog. I hope Lin obliged!

Holding a Mirror Up to America

Jeremy Lin's Celebrity Highlights Casual Anti-Asian Racism.

Hat Tip to the Asian Athletes blog for posting this great piece from the LA Times.......

Jeremy Lin has dribbled America into the previously quiet corner of its casual prejudice and lazy stereotypes of Asian Americans....

...The true beauty of his story is in awareness of the ugliness that has been found there....

....America should see itself in the murky reflection of a society that has long considered it reasonable to publicly categorize Asian Americans in ways that would never be acceptable for other, more vocal minorities.....

...America should see the writer from Foxsports.com who began the barrage of ignorance last week by tweeting a tired joke about the assumed size of Lin's manhood. The guy apologized, but his company did not, which should not be surprising considering Fox Sports is also the outfit that last fall aired a segment in which a reporter ridiculed Asian Americans at USC for not understanding football.

Can you imagine a major American media company tolerating this sort of blatant racism if it were directed toward any of Lin's African American teammates?

America should see the game video from the Knicks' MSG network in which cameras focused on a homemade sign that showed Lin's face above a fortune cookie with the words, "The Knicks Good Fortune.''

Can you imagine, five months from now, that same television director willingly airing a shot of a sign that made fun of the heritage of a Latino member of the New York Mets?

If America has the stomach, it should even watch the tape of the WNYW morning show in New York where one of the anchors, upon hearing a reporter list Lin's physical attributes, asked, "What about his eyes?"

The newsman made the slur, he sort of winked with glee, the entire news desk laughed and I'm thinking, you're kidding me, right?

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

We Are At War With Eastasia

Newspeak.

I wrote about Jeremy Lin in July of 2010, my general feeling at the time was that he had already achieved so much that he could already be considered something of a positive role-model for Asian boys. It is, therefore, nice to see that he has developed even more as a basketball player and is successfully competing against some of the best players in the game. I've long believed that it is the successful Asian sportsmen (and not movie and television characters) who will ultimately be the key players in the struggle to overcome stereotypes and negative attitudes.

What has been the most fascinating aspect of Lin's sudden ascent to celebrity is the reactions of American society. Varying in range from fanatical support to spiteful racial mockery, the response of America has reflected the ambivalent (and perhaps schizophrenic) nature of mainstream attitudes towards Asian people. Even some of those who support Lin might have difficulty speaking about him without some kind of derogatory reference. This Saturday Night Live skit presents a humerous example of this in action - despite being fans of Lin, the commentators make casual use of racial stereotypes and caricature.



I think that one root cause of this ambivalence towards Asians in 21st century is an almost semantic issue. In his fantastic novel, "Nineteen Eighty-Four", George Orwell describes a dystopian future in which every aspect of human society is watched and controlled by totalitarian government. One way that these governments control the minds and thoughts of their subjects is through a method called "Newspeak". In short, Newspeak is a process by which language is simplified by reducing vocabulary and grammar. By this process, key concepts in human thought that have the potential to cause people to have dissenting opinions are simply removed from the vocabulary of the language so that it becomes impossible to even conceptualize notions of freedom and human dignity that differ from the politically accepted ones.

This is somewhat chilling if you really think about it. In the context of mainstream reactions to Jeremy Lin's celebrity, what we seem to be observing is this very process in action. The vocabulary that is generally used to depict or describe Asian men is limited to that which is derogatory or demeaning. Asian men are typically jeered at or summarily dismissed and it is almost impossible to find much reference to Asian men in terms of strength or bravery. In fact, it is almost impossible to find much association of Asian men with humanity, with dehumanizing caricature being the favoured mode of description. Effectively, the concepts of Asians that condition the minds of mainstream America and form the filter through which attitudes towards Asian men are conceived and expressed are limited by the language and images put forward about them.

There is no language put forward in American culture that enables (or permits) Asian men to be conceptualized as masculine or even human by the mainstream. It should come as no surprise that some people are using the only language and concepts of Asian men that they know to describe Lin. That in no way should be taken as putting forward an excuse for blatantly racist attitudes expressed by some, neither is it an excuse for any caricaturing of Asian people. It is simply stating what I perceive to be fact - American society and culture is so geared towards conceiving of Asians in derogatory ways that the language itself is limited to achieving this end. Even in cases where there is so much support and backing for an individual - as is the case with Lin who is, after all, at the center of a dramatic turnaround in the Knicks' fortunes - the language often used in connection with him is inflected with caricature.

This is one of the reasons that I think the use of language to put forward eloquent and compelling argument is an essential tool in the fight against anti-Asian racism. Asian men - intellectuals, artists, players, sportsmen, or even delivery men - have to create the vocabulary that they want to be used to define themselves. I think that is one of the things that Jeremy Lin is doing - he is defining himself in a way tha is free of racial caricature. That to me is a very encouraging thing, and is an endeavour that all Asia-American boys should strive to emulate.

On a final note, one aspect of the Jeremy Lin phenomenon that I find extremely encouraging, is the ongoing punning of Lin's name. To me, this is effectively a way of creating a vocabulary to describe an Asian man and his exploits that is almost entirely free of racial caricature. That gives me some hope.

Nakamura Hits Free Kick Into A Moving Bus

A Hole In One.

Former star of Scottish Premier League side, Celtic, Shinsuke Nakamura showing some amazing skill......

Just Acting?

Or Moral Dilemma?

For Asian-Americans the single most highly debated subject - after the inter-racial dating disparity(!) - is possibly the issue of media representation. From outright derogatory and demeaning representation to invisibility and white-washing of Asian characters, the issue is definitely a hot-topic in any discourse on the Asian-American experience.

One aspect of this issue is the phenomenon of Asian-American actors who come under heavy criticism from within the community for accepting demeaning roles. This often leads to questions of the obligations (if any) of individual actors faced with the dilemma of working in an industry that only permits them stereotyped roles, and the part these roles might play in perpetuating negative attitudes towards Asian people in society in general. Most recently the broadcasting of the comedy show earlier in this year- 2 Broke Girls - has generated renewed discussion on this issue of negative stereoypes and how Asian actors willing to fill these roles might be contributing to their promotion in society in general.

On one side of the argument some Asian actors feel that accepting a demeaning role is part of a larger process that incorporates Asian characters (albeit negatively at first) into the mainstream consciousness that they believe and hope will at some point tilt the balance of influence such that they, or future, actors will have more input in how Asian characters are depicted. The general belief is that demeaning roles must lead inexorably to more nuanced and less stereotypical depictions. Some Asian actors suggest that such roles are not actually as damaging as we would believe and offer nuanced arguments defending roles that severely limit the qualities of the Asian character being portrayed, or might argue that the role will be filled regardless. Others, suggest that the entertainment industry is driven by artistic creativity and thus one-dimensional roles that uphold demeaning stereotypes should somehow be exempt from politically or socially based criticism.

Of course, it could be suggested (and has been suggested) that media characterizations do not, or cannot, influence, or shape public attitudes or behaviours. Yet, casual observation of America's news and media suggests quite strongly that the media itself is heavily invested in the notion that the things they broadcast can heavily affect how people vote, shop, believe, and behave. A look at history should also give some clues that promoting bias through the broadcast media can alter the moral compass of individuals within a population and enable attitudes to shift to such a degree that horrific atrocities can seem like good ideas - the Nazis and Stalin's Russia are a testament to this.

There is, therefore, very little reason to believe that ubiquitous negative and demeaning media (or political) depictions of Asian people can have anything other than a negative impact on the behaviours and attitudes of mainstream Americans towards Asians - this is particularly acute because there are very few positive representations of Asians that provide a balanced perspective. What all of this adds up to is that American culture has a dialogue going about Asian people that is almost ideological in character, which is derived from xenophobic hostility and is a discourse from which the perspectives of Asian people themselves are excluded. Stereotyping in the mass media is the way that this hostile dialogue is popularly propagated throughout American culture, and a casual observation of the degree of anti-Asian behaviours amongst mainstream America's children provides us with strong evidence of the success and pervasiveness of this dialogue.

This should (but surprisingly, often does not) present us with a dilemma of conscience such that the decision of an Asian actor to accept a demeaning role becomes almost a moral question. This is because pervasive negative depictions can and do shift the moral compass of mainstream America and thus normalize demeaning attitudes and behaviours towards Asian people that would be deemed unacceptable if enacted towards individuals within their own group. Given that American culture has been through over half-a-century of an ideological shift that promotes the ethic of respect and acceptance of people regardless of colour or creed, and is, therefore, not ignorant of issues regarding social and cultural integration, the fact that anti-Asian attitudes continue to be normalized underlines the unethical nature of the practice and underscores the moral nature of the issue.

The apparent failure of the Asian minority of America to recognize the ethical nature of this issue is fundamental to understanding why the issue of media representation continues to be such a problem for us. Most of the time we tend to concieve of stereotyping as a way to offend or antagonize, when in fact, their purpose is to promote a worldview of exclusion and insurmountable differentness of Asian people. Yet, the result of promoting such hostile attitudes towards Asian people may even, perhaps, have far more potentially devastating effects such as negatively influencing America's foreign policy choices in Asia.

Since there are no serious moral sensibilities - under normal circumstances - that view actions that promote harm to others as being morally acceptable courses of action, it would seem obvious that there should be an obligation on the part of aspiring Asian-American actors (or anyone with a moral conscience) to cease participation in roles that do that very thing. No actor would accept a role in a film that promoted or normalized the idea that child-abuse is a good and normal thing (well, Clint Eastwood and some Asians might). No actor would accept a role in a movie that promoted the idea that slavery was morally acceptable. The reason is that these things might go beyond the simple creative process and propagate beliefs that normalize child-abuse or the brutality of slavery and thus have the potential to cause harm and suffering to others. It is a question of ethics and morality.

And this is one of the most overlooked aspects of the drive to empower Asian-Americans. We ourselves diminish the seriousness of hostile depictions by failing to place the practice into an appropriate moral frame work. What we fail to realize is that the central principle that underlies any practice of dehumanization is the denial of moral agency of individuals in the target group. Thus, if Asians lack moral agency, then they are incapable of making ethical choices that are congruent with that of Americans. This in turn justifies xenophobia and prejudicial thinking because it is only the depraved or the lower animals who lack moral agency. Additionally, because of this lack of moral agency, it follows that one need not apply the same moral considerations towards Asians as one would towards one's own group. Thus, the very act of accepting demeaning roles could itself be seen as an example of deficient moral agency and, thus, reinforces dehumanization.

Asian actors - or any public figures, perhaps - happen to choose professions that place them in the front line of America's cultural denigration of Asian people. Thus, it would seem obvious that it is they who must, more than anybody, challenge this process of dehumanization. I would suggest that actors have a moral obligation to boycott demeaning roles - where writers and producers are unwilling to compromise - because a major aspect of combatting dehumanizing images is simply to exercise moral agency. The outcome of such an action would only be positive. It's not enough to accept a role hoping in blind faith that it must necessarily contribute to overall progress at some unspecified time in the future.

Film makers might resort to using "yellow-face" to depict Asian characters in which case at least the racism would be undeniable, or they might write the Asian character out of the script altogether, in which case what has been lost except for a few bucks? These types of demeaning roles for Asians are the entertainment industry's equivalent of the dead-end Macdonalds job that purveys a vile junk food that clogs the arteries of Asian creativity and fosters an obese irrelevance. So why do so many people scramble to do it?

I Went To The Crossroads...

I Looked East And West

Check out this Asian dude........



Damn, he did a great job with that slide guitar, and a great version of the song!

Enjoy!!!!

Soccer Trivia

Elastico - The Japanese Connection!

 

Most soccer fans will agree that one of the most skillful and entertaining teams ever to grace the football pitch was the now legendary Brazilian team that won the 1970 World Cup. One of the most exciting talents to emerge from that team of greats was winger, Roberto Rivelino. Quick, incredibly skillful, and with a brilliant football brain, Rivelino could be said to be have been one of the players who drove the evolution of the modern game.

Amongst his repertoire of skills were the ability to curl a football around a wall of defenders at an immensely high velocity (very hard to do), and amazing dribbling skills. One of his most enduring contributions to the skill of dribbling was the so-called "elastico". Never seen before it was performed by Rivelino, the technique threw opponents off balance and allowed him to glide past several defenders at once.

The technique is so useful that almost every player of skill in the modern era has incorporated it into their game. Modern greats such as Eto'o, Ronaldo, and Ronaldinho, have used the technique to devastating effect. It wouldn't be much of an exaggeration to say that the technique has made a major contribution to how the game  is played, and if performed successfully can open up defences and lead to goals.

It was, therefore, interesting to discover that the guy who actually developed the technique was not actually Rivelino, but an old team-mate of his from his Brazilian club side, Corinthians. Even more interesting is that the player who, according to Rivelino himself (see the above video from 6:16), actually developed the technique was a Brazilian Japanese Nissei named Sergio Echigo.

There isn't much information out there in English about Echigo, but according to his Wiki page, he spent around 5 years playing with the Corinthians and then moved to a team in the Japanese league. For those who speak Portuguese - or don't mind trying to make sense of the crappy Google translator - here are a couple of links, with pictures, of the man himself. According to one of the articles, Echigo  made some important contributions to the development of the game in Japan.

In soccer, a piece of skill can win or lose games, and individual players who are able to utilize techniques like the elastico can cause such problems for opposing teams, that strategies and tactics are often created to deal with them. In the modern game, which is characterized by fitness, strength, and an emphasis on preventing the opposing team from playing by closing down space on the filed, the elastico is one of the ways that individual players can take out two or three opponents with one flick of the foot and thus overcome an opposing teams tactics. So, I think it's safe to say that although Echigo will not be remembered as one of the greats, his great contribution to the modern game is undeniable.

Not Like Us

Dying To Be An American; The Asian-American Paradox.

It goes without saying that the Asian-American experience of racism has been, and continues to be, a complex affair. Even at the height of institutionalized anti-Asian prejudice during the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, when strict and uncompromising immigration legislation, along with laws forbidding miscegenation and limits on legal and citizenship rights, some Asian immigrants into this country still managed to lay down roots and build some degree of prosperity. Altough beset by roving mobs of angry white men who were jealous and fearful of the Asian man's capacity to endure through the most hateful of atrocities, and in constant danger of the lynch mob, Asian men still managed to work their way to a (admittedly) precarious economic empowerment that formed the basis and blueprint for success emulated by subsequent generations of Asian immigrants.

Even today, our experience is paradoxical and the way that various members of the community conceive of this experience with its remarkable diversity of opinion and perception is a clear reflection of this paradox. On one end of the spectrum we have Captains of Culture, Political Pacesetters, and Jocularity Jockeys, for whom racism may not have been an obstacle, non-existent (in certain cases), or is something so far out of their experience that it doesn't even get a mention in their discourse. On the other end of the spectrum we have the Japanese tsunami victims - whose suffering elicited an outpouring of racist gloating from America's mainstream online communities thus highlighting pervasive anti-Asian attitudes. There's also Private Danny Chen, the Chinese-American army volunteer who died recently of racism.

Bizarrely, Asian-Americans are admired, but also feared and disliked for the very things that we are admired for. We are respected but are largely demeaned by American culture. Most importantly we are protected by legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate against us because of our race, yet, we live in a society whose culture actively promotes personal hostility, dislike, distrust, as well as negative demeaning attitudes and behaviours towards us. As I pointed out here, even though it is illegal for institutions to exhibit racist practices and attitudes, American culture itself promotes these very things in its depictions of, and attitudes towards, Asian people. Thus, although no longer permitted by law, it is now propagated by private institutions and individuals - most notably in the mass-media and entertainment industries - the result of which is a normalization and mainstream acceptance of anti-Asian behaviours and attitudes.

This means that institutional prejudice may have diminished, but personal dislike as fostered by American culture, continues unabated. Thus the paradox; legislation to combat institutional racism is off-set by a private sector propagation of anti-Asian hostility as a matter of personal taste. Often the result is the same - the promotion that never comes through, the pay-raise that never materializes, the unsuccessful job interviews of a highly qualified applicant, violent beating, or even a failed college application, all of which depend on the personal tastes of an individual from the mainstream who has been conditioned by his culture to dislike Asians. This normalization of anti-Asian attitudes manifests in other ways too; blasé declarations of distaste, casual harassment, and racially inflected mockery have become accepted ways of interacting with Asian people as modeled by glamourous celebrities, or on-the-make politicians, via the platform of popular culture.

The case of Private Danny Chen is a clear of example of this process in action. The army as an institution opens its doors to all people. In fact, although under-represented in proportion to the Asian population of America (not surprising when you consider that most Asian-Americans are foreign born and many are unable to speak English), there has been a healthy representation of Asian-Americans in the military, many of whom served with distincton both in the past and present. It is almost impossible to say, therefore, that the army practices institutional racism towards Asians since it seems that they are accepted into the ranks without much hoopla.

Yet, what is clear from the Chen case, is that racist attitudes and behaviours towards Asian people can be casually practiced and accepted as normative within the structure of a non-discriminatory institution because such actions derives from culturally conditioned personal distaste - just like in mainstream American culture. As this article suggests, Chen's success or failure became something of a crap-shoot; if he was lucky, then he might have been put into a unit that might have allowed him the opportunity to prove his value as a soldier. If not, then he faced attitudes from peers conditioned by their culture to believe that racism is the normal mode of interaction with Asians. Sadly, most of the soldiers understood this dynamic except for Chen, who seemed confounded and confused by the harassment (Asian-American culture bears some degree of blame for that).

And this is the crux of the Asian paradox. Because promoting personal distaste for, and negative attitudes towards Asians is an almost intrinsic aspect of the conditioning that occurs in American culture, Asians can simultaneously reach the heights of success whilst experiencing casual racist attitudes. It is why some Asians are fortunate enough to experience very little racism, whilst for others it defines their worldview, with neither side really able to understand the other's point of view. Common to both is that what they both experience is considered normal - being harassed by someone who may smash your head in with a baseball bat if you talk back becomes as normalized a potential experience as someone saying good morning.

What happened to Danny Chen is the natural outcome of America's cultural antagonism towards Asian people in general and Asian men in particular. Because personal distaste (via dehumanizing depictions and attitudes) is propagated as the normal and accepted way of conceiving of Asians, the moral compass of mainstream America is skewed in its behaviour towards us. Since dehumanization implicitly diminishes the moral agency of the target group, it by necessity diminishes the obligation of the mainstream to apply the same moral consideration to Asian people as they would to their own group or groups. Whether it is school administrators turning a blind-eye to violence against Asian children, big-name directors promoting the idea of racial abuse of children as a means to integration, or torturing a fellow soldier because he's Asian, the necessary outcome of America's skewed moral attitudes towards Asians is apparent.

Silence Isn't Golden

But Speaking Up Is.

I came across this post via the Angry Asian Man that was written by an Asian-American man describing his experience of being on the receiving end of some verbal racial abuse on San Francisco's public transport system. You can read the full post here. In short, the post describes how, whilst riding the BART train, the blog writer was subjected to several minutes of racial abuse and harassment by another passenger, yet chose not to engage in an altercation with his harasser. What I found interesting are the reasons the writer gives for his decision to not confront the other passenger as well as his general reading of the situation.

The Asian-American experience of the 21st Century can be characterized as being similar to the experience of a society under the threat of terrorist attack. As I've alluded to here and here, the routine dehumanization of Asian people in American culture, coupled with political rhetoric that blames Asia for all the economic woes of America, combine to create an environment in which the bomb of racial violence or abuse can go off at any time. Much in the same way that extremist madrassas produce individuals who are conditioned to believe that blowing themselves up is a path to Paradise, American culture and society conditions Americans to normalize feelings of hostility towards Asian people - as well as normalizing the notion that their hatred and hostility is justified.

As the writer of the blog post relates.....

I don't know if I did the right thing, but I didn't exercise my freedom of speech to speak back directly. I remained silent. I kept quiet because I remembered that when Vincent Chin retaliated when he was called a chink, two white men chased him down, clubbed him to death with a baseball bat, and then got off scot-free by the legal system.

This to me is a clear indication of terrorism having a succesful outcome. Just like after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 when so many people were terrified by the thought of getting on a plane, or even working in a high-rise building in a downtown area, for some Asian-Americans, the threat of random violence or racial abuse stemming from the unaplologetic culture of anti-Asianism that pervades American society is a very real concern.

As you can see from many of the remarks in the comments section in the article, the general attitude seems to be that the writer should have utilized some kind of physical retribution against his abuser. I don't really agree with this for a several reasons.

I generally tend to see those who resort to physical violence to win arguments as being intellectually limited. Don't get me wrong, being able to defend oneself against physical attack is natural, and devleoping this ability is an necessary aspect of developing confidence. As I suggested here, physical empowerment is essential. But most of the time, it should be the last resort. This is because all conflicts are won or lost on the strength of ideas and beliefs, and the person or group who has the last word is always the winner. That's why battles can be lost, and peoples subjugated, but the ideas of the subjugated can change the conquerer more profoundly than the violence of the conquerer is able to change the subjugated.

Because negative and hostile mainstream social and cultural attitudes that promote this type of (sometimes violent) behaviour is designed not to offend but to keep Asians in their disempowered place, keeping silent is tantamount to an acceptance of this lower social value that is placed on Asian men. This, in turn, means that for the Asian guy on the train, a verbal retort instead of a physical one, would most likely still have resulted in his being attacked. This is why being able to defend oneself gives one the freedom and confidence to not stay silent for fear of attack - the emphasis here is on developing the physical prowess that would give one the confidence to use the mind to win battles.

That is why I believe that eloquence in speech and language, and the ability to utilize these qualities to articulate compelling argument, are some of the most important qualities for any group or individual faced with prejudice. It is the voice that cannot and should not ever be made to go silent, physical resistance is often easily vanquished, but the voice can go on resisting. True empowerment means having the courage to not be shouted down, and I think that one of the biggest problems facing our community is an apparent aversion to the culture of argumentation. It is one of the reasons that people like Frank Chin become pariahs - argumentation seems to be discouraged. The problem is, without the culture of argumentation, you can't develop the qualities that I believe are necessary to empower the individual.

The ability and confidence to argue compellingly, means that the mind is on a path to emancipation, which in turn means that whatever psychological barriers instilled in Asian men by the conditioning of mainstream culture no longer have power over us. That is a terrifying thought for mainstream America - more terrifying, even, than the idea of physically empowered Asia men. Thus, having the capacity to talk enemies down is more empowering than beating them down.

I think that for some Asian people there is a tendency to rest on the belief that a strong community voice empowers individuals - this seems logical. Positive media representation, an influential political voice, or a charismatic leader, are some of the things that we believe will empower Asians. Regardless of whether this is an accurate projection, the fact remains that unless individuals accept the responsibility of personal empowerment - success in these areas become meaningless. Just as many Americans are starting to understand that democracy is more than simply picking a candidate, and is an ongoing task of participation in political and social life, Asians have to realize that empowerment is also about participation and involves asserting one's self respect in every day interactions with the mainstream.

I'm Sexy....

....And I Know It!!

Awesome! LOL!!



Happy New Year!

One Of Europe's Most Powerful Men....

....Is Vietnamese.

Meet Phillip Rösler, born in Vietnam, adopted by a German family, achieved the rank equivalent to Captain in the German army's medical corp, husband, and father, presently serving as the Vice-Chancellor of Germany, and as such is the second highest ranking official in the government of Europe's strongest economic power.

Sounds like an interesting character. I don't know how this guy overcame the barriers (if any) imposed by his ethnicity and gender but it's nice to think that Rösler may have been the outsider who rose above his expected limitations.

Remember the above picture because it represents an image of Asian men that American culture fears above almost everything - an empowered and powerful Asian man not limited by demeaning stereotypes, nor emasculated by xenophobia. Sometimes becoming powerful or empowered involves little more than a realization that  the state of being powerful is simply your natural state - the dilemma being that we live in a society that actively seeks to disconnect Asian men from the belief that this state is natural to them.

Princes being made to plough the fields, if you will.

Stupid Ass.

Hollywood Is Race-Blind!

This just in; Hollywood is race blind. The bigWOWO recently posted this revelation, compliments of one Dan Lin - a Harvard Business School graduate turned film producer. According to Lin, quoted in this article.....

“I guess for me I don’t see a lack of Asian American actors. I think more and more Asian American actors are getting out there,” Lin said, adding that Hollywood is race-blind. “It’s all about who tells the best story. They don’t care what ethnicity you are, they just want … the most talented.”

Nice one.

The most surprising thing about this news is that no-one else in America seems to have noticed this remarkable fact. Given that can we know for sure that racism is prevalent in most, if not all, aspects of American society, it is truly amazing that not one activist, social scientist, Liberal, or academic, seems to be aware of the forward-thinking, race-blind Utopian industry that happened to manifest spontaneously in Hollywood.

It would be nice to hear how Hollywood has succeeded in achieving the feat of ending the racially biased thinking that afflicts the rest of American society. No other institution in America can boast that it has eradicated the kind of petty racially inflected thinking that discriminates against minorities in every level of American society. Whether it be in housing, college applications, incarceration rates, poverty rates, minority representation in management positions in industry, the fact is that minorities undergo biased attitudes in almost all aspects of their lives. So, it would be nice if Hollywood would show the rest of American society how to go about the same transformation.

According to Lin, the one exception to this prevalent social ill is Hollywood - which is race blind - yet no-one has noticed this except for Dan Lin.

In other news, reports suggest that the military is also race-blind. Sources close to Hollywood report that the story of Danny Chen's race-blind experience in the army is to be made into a movie. The role of Danny Chen will be played by either Shia Labeouf, or another white actor. Lin may be producing. Stay tuned.

Now I Hit Back.

Facing The Demons.

I came across this awesome blogpost and thought it was worth sharing....

I was the pudgy Chinese kid. In 4^th grade, I was the equivalent to the lame gazelle limping at the back of the herd. Easy pickins for every bully who roamed the halls looking for a distraction......As a result, I just accepted the daily taunting, occasional beating and even a very painful “Jim, go back to Shanghai,” which, by the way, was uttered in front of the entire class by my 6^th grade homeroom teacher..... By the time I was a senior, an entirely new life lay ahead of me. There was just one thing I couldn’t shake: the nagging regret for my passivity in the face of aggression. It was time to face my demons........If I were to face my demons, I needed the threat of real pain. Between 1995 and 2007, I pounded the passivity out of my psyche, training in kickboxing and MMA (“anything goes” UFC type stuff). Along the way, I made some of the best friends I will ever have. There’s nothing like spending a few hours a week choking, punching, kneeing and kicking each other to forge lifelong bonds of friendship........When I watch this [video], it reminds me that despite all the years of blood, sweat and dedication, I still get my butt whupped. But whereas I lived to train another day, my demons went down for the count.......Because now I hit back.

http://www.busydadblog.com/entries/leap-of-faith-2-knocking-out-my-demons.html

Great attitude, great story!

Someone Get's It!

Stephen Chan Telling It Like It Is.

I came across this fascinating debate on the subject of the China's investments in Africa. As you might notice the side opposed to Chinese investment employs mainly shrill, generalizations that are little more than xenophobic fear-mongering. In this video, some Chinese dude named Stephen Chan exposes, in the most eloquent way, the blatant racist attitudes towards both Africans and Chinese that underlies opposition to Chinese investment.



You should also check out Chan's website - he appears to be something of a Renaissance Man; writer, skilled martial artist, world traveler, philanthropist, intellectual, husband, government advisor, and the list goes on. Here's his website......http://www.stephen-chan.com/index.html. Sounds like a good role-model!

Also, check out what this lady has to say about the realities of Chinese investment in Africa.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHEpsXmmD48&feature=BFa&list=SPE7865CD7C141D230&lf=list_related

A Punch Can Speak A Thousand Words.

The Manny Pacquiao Effect.

There's an interesting article published in Salon Magazine that examines how the success of Filipino boxer, Many Pacquiao, has given Asian-Americans a long-overdue popular hero and provided a sense of commonality amongst the various Asian groups within the US.

For Asians and Filipinos who were born and live in the West, Pacquiao offers a space where a diasporic people can feel closer to somewhere hardly ever seen. For a few hours they are united with all the other Asians in the world hunkered down in Pacquiao caps, socks and hoodies, trying not to gnaw off the rim of their beer glasses. Pacquiao closes a distance of thousands of miles so that they are at home........ I had never seen such a comforting, familiar and unabashed presentation of Asianness on American TV.

These few sentences actually speak volumes. The idea of a common and unified Asian-America is a notion that is given much lip service, but which in reality lacks any meaningful definition or conceptual identity. The underlying reason for this is probably due to the fact that the term "Asia" only gives us information about a general geographical area, but beyond this is fundamentally meaningless as a term which might define cultures or civilizations. Asians generally don't think of themselves as "Asians" any more than a Frenchman thinks of himself as a South-American. Although attempts have been made by various thinkers to define a Pan-Asian ontology, the concept remains largely unrealized.

It's more true to say that Asia can be thought of as a somewhat fractured collection of independently conceived societies with little pan-national cohesion and, in many cases, a degree of hostility amongst its ethnicities. If we examine Asian-America, we might notice that our thinking and self-conception follows this model to varying degrees. Many Asian-American individuals in various communities see themselves as having little in common with other Asian immigrant communities and this even expresses itself in what could only be described as prejudicial thinking towards other Asian groups.

If we couple this with the "softly, softly" approach to acceptance or integration, that has been favoured by most of Asia's immigrants into the US, what we have left is a concept of a Pan-Asian Asian-America that is unjustifiably asserted, but generally under-explored let alone striven for. It is, therefore, very telling that the one phenomenon that can cause Asia's various groups (both in the US and Asia) to have a sense of unity comes in the form of a hyper-aggressive and finely muscled athlete whose job it is to smash people's faces in. Interestingly, the only other Asian personality to have this effect on the Asian mind was also an unashmedly aggressive and finely muscled Asian man named Bruce Lee.

Who would have guessed that out of the entire body of the Asian-American experience, not a single thinker or intellectual has had the capacity to unite almost the entire community in pride such that ethnic and gender divisions all but disappear, yet two Asian men with exceptional fighting prowess have been able to do exactly that? Clearly, what Asian-America - and perhaps Asia itself - is hungry for is this sense of physicality. All too often the Asian-American dialogue seems to be characterized by an almost mystical cerebralization that hyper-subjectivizes the issues to the point that they actually become almost meaningless. (This is most usually achieved by re-writing history, but more on this in a later post!)

No feminist, Angry-Asian-Boogie-Man, or public intellectual has even come close to delivering to the hungry masses of the Asian minority the kind of satisfying sense of pride offered by the fact of strong, proud, Asian men. Ironically, despite the best efforts of some of Asian-America's culture clowns - whose ontology seems to be based upon the denial of Asian masculinity - it is strong and empowered Asian men that give us the most pride, perhaps even to those who wouldn't date us! How could Asian-American culture have missed the boat so utterly?

Clearly, what is most craved by Asian-Americans (male and female alike, and most probably second generation onward) is an empowered masculinity that is unapologetic about its own strength and power. Yet, almost by paradox, it is some sections of Asian-American culture itself that seems to feed the machinations of American culture that seek to demean this very masculine empowerment that is being craved. Given that the only observable phenomenon that has actually succeeded in providing a sense of unity and pride is powerful Asian men, it seems obvious to say that an empowered and confident Asian-American community can come into being only through the realization of Asian male empowerment.

As I've already suggested, the biggest obstacle to this is the aspect of Asian-American culture that upholds demeaning images and the invisibility of Asian men. Most usually done in the name of commercial success, and mainstream recognition, this aspect of our culture is the antithesis to our attempts to accepted as fully American, and perhaps even fully human.

Asian Americans most bullied in US schools: study

No Shit!!!

Via Angry Asian Man......

According to new survey data release over the weekend for the Bullying Prevention Summit, 54 percent of Asian American teenagers said they were bullied in the classroom -- a figure waaaaay above the percentages of other groups.

I would be surprised if anyone is surprised by this. As I've stated in several posts, racially inflected harassment of Asian-American children is an integral aspect of the mainstream American growth experience - it is inherent in the American identity.

The reason is that American culture promotes the harassment and denigration of Asian people as a normative and casual aspect of their self-image. Many, if not most, of America's cultural representations of Asian people are likely to involve glamourous, beautiful, and powerful, white or (ever more frequently these days) black characters acting out the American dream of belittling or, even more popularly, crushing, the Asian. But it's not only dramatic re-enactments of anti-Asian genocidal fantasies where negative attitudes towards Asians are propagated. Many influential and popular celebs and politicians help in the normalization of anti-Asian harassment through their mockery of Asian racial characteristics or cultures.

This should give us an idea of the extent of the problem of anti-Asian racism in schools. American culture models anti-Asian attitudes that can only lead to destructive behaviour towards Asian people. This is because it is commonplace for the role-models of mainstream America to exhibit destructive anti-Asian attitudes, both within and outside of the context of their work. It can therefore be said that this aspect American culture itself is a form of racial harassment.

The belief that the Asian minority prospers free of racism is a proposition that is belied by the phenomenon of high prevelance anti-Asian school racism. There is little reason to believe that mainstream American children who grow up in an atmosphere of normalized anti-Asian racism, will somehow mature into unconditioned individuals, free of anti-Asian prejudice. On the contrary, it is more likely that those who are exposed to this type of attitude (which might well be most Americans) will maintain these attitudes in adulthood. No aspect of American culture teaches them otherwise.

More here.

I'll Eat Any Bitch!

A Dog Dinner.

Asians eat dogs, or rather, in some Asian cultures dogs are included in the pantheon of acceptable consumable animal meats. Some Asian cultures apparently abhor eating dogs - the Japanese (I believe) find the practice rather disagreeable, as do some Islamicized Asians, whilst others are pretty unapologetic about it. Somewhat less known, is the fact that opposition to dog-eating exists within those cultures that practice it. In fact, some nations that are recriminated for their chow-munching habits - such as the Phillipines - have legislation outlawing the convention.

Western revulsion for the practice is well documented and as always it is the western perspective that receives the most consideration and thus defines the practice as both disgusting and immoral. Of course, in an objective sense, eating dogs is no more or less repulsive or immoral than eating chickens or cows. Granted there is the very real issue of cruelty, but if the practice was legislated to ensure humane treatment for the animal then I fail to see how there are any objective reasons for people - any people - to feel shame about eating dogs.

At the root of the fuss over dog-eating, is a very real clash of values stemming from differing cultural norms and attitudes ultimately deriving from colonialist notions. The "issue" over dog-eating boils down to a single factor; western (mostly white) people think it's disgusting. This, of course, is just an opinion mainly from emotion, but white privilege is able to transform this mere opinion into a worldview that seems to serve as a foundation that informs the western mind about the character of Asian people. Even without notions of cruelty, it is somehow implied that eating dogs reflects a bestial quality inherent in the character of Asiatic peoples.

As a person who thinks that dogs are adorable enough to eat, I obviously share the cultural proclivity that sees dog-munching as undesirable. But for some reason I lack the arrogance to believe that I have the right to shame or pressure other people to think likewise. After my last pet dog died several years ago, I decided that I couldn't justify keeping another, because to do so would make me a hypocrite - particularly because so many people associate keeping a dog as a pet with humane-ness.

Many people in America treat their dogs better than they treat minorities, their employees, homeless people, or even their own elderly parents. For me, keeping a dog as a pet became morally unjustifiable precisely because I couldn't see how it is humane to have a clean, well-fed, well-housed dog, whilst everyday I would pass several smelly, homeless and hungry people on the street. I started to wonder why instead of trying to create cultural shifts amongst Asian societies that would see them motivated to not eat dogs, Americans didn't try harder to convince their own people to freely use whatever money they would spend on their pet dogs to better address the homelessness problem. A well-fed dog takes food out of the mouths of the homeless and diverts resources that might be better spent. Some dogs even have better health care than many Americans.

Amongst the many ironies of this situation is that dogs evolved to roam in packs in the wild outdoors, hunting or scavenging for food, and not to be kept as ornaments for the pleasure of man. Keeping dogs separated from their own kind, and indoors where they are unable to exercise their natural instincts, could itself be argued to be somewhat cruel. As it stands, American society is more comfortable with the reality that homeless people roam the outdoors, sometimes in packs, and scavenge for whatever scraps they can find amongst the shit and bloodied tampons of the humane, whilst society's pet dogs leave their warm, dry homes and bound along defacating and urinating under the canopy of overpasses and hidden corners of the buildings where the sleeping places of the homeless might be found.

The moralistic brow-beating of Asian cultures for their dog-eating habits, is simply one of many ways that western culture gets to feel smug about its own superiority. Yet, I see nothing inherently more moral or even more desirable about a society that has an entire industry devoted to elevating the comfort of dogs (who incidentally are happy to eat cat's shit!) over that of homeless and poor people. Now, it could be argued that Asians aren't particularly nice to their homeless masses, but -if true, and I'm not saying it is - this just means we are more honest. We're not the ones with pretentions of humane superiority!

Stupid Racists?

The Elephant In the Room....

The 8Asians blog recently published a post in which Eugene Lui, the founder of a political group called the Asian Conservatives, gave an interview in which he talks about how Asian-Americans might fit into the landscape of American politics via the ideology of conservatism. Also discussed was how he, as a conservative, conceives of the issue anti-Asian racism in the media, as well the reasons for the apparent dearth of Asian-American conservative bloggers. Here is what he has to say about perceived anti-Asian racism in the media......

Well, I think “racist” has been used so much in the mainstream media these days that the word has lost its meaning........The Civil Rights Movement — that was about racism. Somebody calling me names and making fun of my slanted eyes — that’s just an immature moron stating the obvious..............................Okay, I’m going to say it: Dear libs, stop being so sensitive to every. little. thing. If a popular sitcom doesn’t have an Asian actor, that doesn’t mean the viewers don’t know that Asians exist. If an Asian actor portrays a nerdy student in a Hollywood movie, that doesn’t mean everybody thinks we’re nerds (do you think blacks — ahem, African Americans — are nerds after falling in love with the Steve Urkel character?). It’d be an issue if Asian American citizens were denied voting rights. It’d be an issue if Asian Americans were being persecuted as a follower of Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Falun Gong, or some other religion. It’d be an issue an Asian Americans were being taxed differently than other ethnic groups. It’d be an issue if Asian American parents were prohibited from making babies. .......Remember: Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness.

I was quite surprised by this response for a number of reasons. The idea that media portrayals can challenge traditional family values is a prominent notion in conservative thinking. It is a conservative view that media depictions of glamourized casual sex, casual drug use, and homosexuality, can and do have negative affects on the thinking, moral decision making, as well as the behaviour, of America's youth in particular and society in general. Even foul language and explicit language in songs might be viewed as a potential threat to the morality of the traditional family.

The gist of such thinking is that culture influences (or even directs) public opinion and behaviour, and normalizes activities that run counter to traditional values of moral thinking. Thus, such unwholesome cultural endeavour is seen to play a major role in how individuals within a society views themselves, what they consider appropriate morally and behaviourally, and ultimately shifts the compass away from traditional concepts of moral and upstanding behaviour. Additionally, culture is also a reflection of what is actually socially acceptable - popular cultural depictions merely mirror the realities of social interactions. So whilst popular culture can direct opinion and behaviour, it also reflects the reality of how people within the society may actually be behaving and thinking, as well as identifies the ways in which individuals view themselves in relation to others within the society.

If the conservatives are correct that permissiveness in the discourse of popular culture has the capacity to alter individuals' social behaviour, then it must logically follow that negative depictions of Asian people have the capacity to promote and normalize negative behaviour towards Asians. Many people seem to believe that pornography and some depictions of casual sex in film and television can lead people to have sexist attitudes towards women which might ultimately contribute to an environment conducive to harassment, rape, or even violence. It should follow that any media representation of any given group that promotes a demeaning one-sided view can lead to negative social attitudes and behaviours. In order to deny that demeaning and negative stereotyping of Asians contributes to negative behaviours towards that group one must necessarily question or deny that media pornography or casual sex, violence, foul-language, and casual depictions of drug use, can negatively impact moral decision making, or normalize such activities. This runs counter to the claims of conservative moralism.

It is impossible to deny that most representations of Asian people in the American media are one-sided and tend to be derogatory, xenophobically histrionic, and generally dissmissive of any value in Asian people or contemptuous of any contribution of their cultures to the richness of the human experience. Whether it be movie characters, politicians looking for cheap votes, or celebrities trying to be controversial (paradoxically, without stepping on any important toes!), the general tone is the same - Asians are demeaned or dehumanized, ridiculed or mocked, villified or dismissed. Given this general conservative belief that the media and influential personalities can impact people's ability to make responsible moral decisions, and thus affect behaviour, it seems naive (or maybe dishonest in some cases) to offhandedly dismiss derogatory images of Asians.

Of course, one could read this post and think to oneself; "So what?!" Aren't Asian-Americans outperforming everyone in universities, the workplace, income levels and so on and so forth? Isn't it trite to complain about the media when Asians are so successful in America? Surely, our success is an indication that the negative attitudes and racism propagated by American culture do not affect our ability to prosper? Whilst I cannot disagree that some segments of the Asian-American community do succeed, such an attitude reflects a lack of nuanced thinking common amongst Asian-Americans that, I believe, is almost as big a detriment to our prosperity as are racist attitudes.

History shows that when a society promotes negative attitudes and stereotypes about an unpopular group, then the result is usually unpleasant - even in situations where the target group has acheived a degree of integration. The Jews of Nazi germany provide the best example of this. In the years before the Nazis came to power, Germans of Jewish descent were amongst the most prosperous and highly educated people within German society. Yet, the Nazis were able to exploit negative attitudes, behaviours, and stereotypes that had persisted about the Jews to bring about the holocaust. Smilarly, the South Indians of Uganda were a prosperous minority, but persistent hostility towards them led to their eventual expulsion.

Then there are the Americans of Japanese descent who, prior to Pearl Harbour, had become a somewhat integral part of west coast life. Their slow but definite progress towards prosperity was rudely interrupted by an internment process caused by paranoid fear, and enabled by the persistence of racial hostility and resentments. The point should be clear. Any minority against whom negative attitudes and resentments are harboured, are likely to fall victim to some kind of backlash. Unfortunately for us Asian-Americans, we live in a society whose culture actively, cynically, and deliberately, promotes harassment of Asian people.

In short, it's difficult to see how one can hold to the belief that the media and it's personalities can influence the moral compass and behaviour of American society, whilst downplaying the idea that media mockery, and misrepresentation of Asians can lead to negative outcomes for Asian people. For this reason, conservatives of all people should understand this better than anyone else - Asian conservatives even more so. It is simply avoidance to characterize as "stupid' or "immature", the casual and routine racism enabled by the cultural normalization of anti-Asian harassment. In fact, the culture of harassment of Asians is so integral to the American psyche, that it is even normal for America's children to routinely express hostile attitudes towards Asians. It may be true that many Asian-Americans have achieved prosperity, but given the fact that attitudes of resentment and distrust are spitefully promoted in American culture, any prosperity seems built on a weak foundation.

And Now For Something Completely Different......

...A Perfect Woman!

Just taking a short interlude to appreciate some of the finer things in life! A great riff, ominous music, and an awesome drummer. Enjoy!



I especially like her cymbal hitting.

"Don't Trust Whitey!"

Playing The Pretend Game.

It's funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. I came across this interesting article in the Telegraph that reports some recent research which casts some doubt on the long-held belief that famous explorer, Marco Polo, actually went to China. This claim is not really new - a 1995 book made similar claims - but  after several centuries, Polo's discovery of the wonders of the mystical East have become somewhat exagerrated to the point that his (doubtful) exploits are seemingly given more historical significance than any actual Chinese history. Yet, much of what Polo wrote was seemingly inaccurate or second-hand information that he didn't witness himself - which I suppose makes him a bullshitter.

Not so strangely, this comes as no surprise to me. As I have written about elsewhere on this blog, anyone can make claims about Asia and its people and it is unlikely that the claims will be challenged or in any way questioned for accuracy, honesty, or truth. Generalizing and shaping the image of Asia has become the Gold Rush of the 21st century for many present-day prospective Polos who see opportunity in reinforcing the fear of, and prejudices towards Asians. Seemingly just about anyone can have a go - indifference, ignorance, or just plain old xenophobic fear makes it a sure sell. These revelations about Marco Polo simply show that this process of getting rich or famous through making stuff up (or exagerrating half-truths) about Asia has a longer history than previously thought. In fact, so successful is the endeavour, that there are even some Asians who have imitated this path to success. As one might guess, it is the Asian man who bears the brunt of this misrepresentation.

I think that it is important for Asian men in America to remember that in the modern world, the driving force behind this misrepresentation seems to be resentment and envy at any apparent succcess of Asian people. From inner city shopkeepers to higher profile sportsmen, from academic over-achievers in the Ivy League to the economic powerhouses of East Asia, the onslaught of apparently prosperous people with Asiatic faces has left the western world's certainty of its own superiority in tatters. We can know this by how mainstream America reacts to successful Asian men. So successfully have western peoples been brainwashed to believe in their inherent superiority over the Asian that many seem unable to compute the notion of a successful Asian man. Many Asian men might find that despite playing by all the rules and achieving their success fairly, their success itself is often held against them as evidence of their malevolent and inferior character - even if you are successful you must have done something sneaky or even immoral to achieve it.

For instance, let's take sports. A popular and well-loved stereotype maintains that Asian sportsmen are simply too weak to compete against their far superior western counterparts. This is why when Asian sportsmen do succeed the response can often be characterized as shrill, irrational, and panicky. The clearest example of this occurred during the 2002 soccer World Cup held in South Korea. That year the South Korean team had the best run of any Asian team before or since. Reaching the last four, they overcame such soccer powers as Spain, Portugal, and Italy, incurring the wrath of these soccer superpowers who screamed conspiracy and falsely (and in some ways ironically) accused the Koreans of cheating. The Italians even went so far as to vent their petty rage on the Korean player who scored the winning goal against them by threatening to drop him from the Italian team for whom he had been playing. More recently in boxing, Manny Pacquiao's achievements have been besmirched by insinuations of cheating through the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Some of the most anxious outbursts of irrational xenophobia occur in connection to the economic rise of various Asian countries. Those who witnessed the rise of Japan's economic power during the 1970's and 1980's might remember the panicked hysteria it elicited amongst some western observers. According to some experts Japan's success was due to the robotic nature of the Japanese people. The Japanese were dismissed as unthinking, and unquestioning, machine-like  automatons devoid of personality and individual character whose potential was therefore easily exploitable and suitable for repetitive labour. In this way, the west was able to re-assure itself that although the Japanese were prosperous, it was somehow less worthy, or legitimate than western prosperity and hence the west was still best.

The recent rise of China as a power has elicited an even more histrionic reaction. It seems that the tone of much of the China commentary is that the Chinese are sneaky, lying, thieving, cheating, monsters whose bestial racial characteristics compels them to seek to overwhelm western civilization. Underlying all of this is an apparent raging incredulity that these upstart Chinese dare to demand a prosperity for their people equal to that of Americans. Of course, the relative success of China's economy is usually put down to some kind of cheating or sneakiness on the part of the Chinese horde.

But this type of hostile resentment towards prosperous Asians isn't limited to foreign economic competitors. Here in the U.S a degree of prosperity of some sections of the Asian minority brings with it mainstream justifications for prejudice and hostility against them. Running counter to the notion of the American dream, Asian-American prosperity has been the cue that has legitimized anti-Asian vilification and mockery. Out of all immigrant and minority groups, our prosperity alone is met with hostility and even attempts to curtail it.

The common thread in all of these examples of histrionic misrepresentation is the idea that prosperity of Asian people has been achieved through some degree of dishonesty or under-handedness, and if this is not the case, such prosperity should be feared anyway because Asians are bad people. The upshot of all this is that there is no reason to trust or believe anything that is written about Asian people by self-described western experts. Given that we can be fairly certain that hysteria, fear, and an ingrained sense of hostility, clouds mainstream attitudes towards us, it seems that the only response to Asia experts is skepticism.

What all of this suggests to me is that the 19th Century western colonial ideas of the Asian man who needs to be put in his place and whose only value is as a servant, remains the filter through which western minds conceive of Asian people. Whether you are Asian born and raised in the Mississippi or the Mekong Delta makes little difference - if you are a successful Asian (and male) your prosperity is an affront not only to the stereotypes that western minds create about you to make themselves feel safe, but also shatters some very core beliefs that insist on the superiority of the Caucasian.