And Follow In This Guys Footsteps.
Some comedian picking on the wrong Asian.....
This sensitive-looking Asian dude with sensitive-looking ponytail shows us how to deal with racism and those who disrespect Asians and that sensitive-looking guys aren't always wimps!. Granted the guy was being a comedian, but I won't fault the Asian for reacting to the insult the way he did - that's what any normal man would do.
H/T Angry Asian Man
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Dumb And Dumber
Dating White Guy Activism.
It's almost impossible to believe that only half-a-century ago dating and marrying outside of one's race was illegal in many states and could lead to imprisonment, social stigmatization, or even death. It has been a long and hard-earned struggle of individuals and civil rights groups that has slowly brought about legal changes and shifts in social attitudes such that the choice to marry outside one's race is no longer controlled by despotic legislation, although it must be said that social stigmas, though less apparent, still remain. For some demographics, society still maintains reservations about the desirability of miscegenation and thus although it is legal, dating and marrying someone of a different race is still a serious life-choice that is not discussed casually, or taken lightly. With one exception.
A recent article in the Huffington Post, written by Princeton student Vivienne Chen explores the nuanced bigotry involved in the increasingly common practice of Asian women who exclusively date white men. As Chen explains, the practice is a minefield of prejudice and racial stereotyping - which she casually accepts with a flighty shrug and a petulant sigh. Chen's article was written in response to these two articles which also bemoan the pitfalls involved when some Asian women exhibit biased thinking against all men of colour (including and sometimes, particularly Asian men) and choose to exclusively date white men.
The results of these stereotypes have even more far-reaching effects than simply discouraging inter-racial dating. Stereotypes about Asian timidity embolden anti-Asian racism and have created a culture of casual, nonchalant, throw-away, prejudice that is expressed with little expectation of repercussion. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is the way this stereotype of Asian people may affect America's foreign policy actions in its sometimes delicate relations with Asian countries. Negative stereotypes of black men - violent and hyper-aggressive - drive police brutality and even contribute to the death of innocent black children.
Yet, despite this, Chen's choice is to focus on the "hardship" faced by a small minority of white men who are "unfairly" stereotyped as Asia-philes. And right there in a nutshell illustrates the second most important reason (the first is; I just don't care) for why I don't concern myself with the so-called "IR disparity debate" - in order to hold dialogue on the subject one has to often be able to actually comprehend the thought process of a muddled mind, which means that you have to understand the logic of stupidity. I'm glad to say that, so far, I have been unable to do this.
It takes a unique kind of privilege to be able to be so casual about a subject with as bloody a history as miscegenation, so much so that the author is able to acknowledge her own and other Asian women's biased thinking when it comes to stereotypes and prejudices about minority men (who in passed years bore the brunt of anti-miscegenation violence) yet can wave it away by citing reasons beyond their control - it's not their fault! Of course, it is also speaks volumes that Asian women are routinely given mainstream platforms to wax poetic about their prejudices and biases (most often against their own people and culture) in a way that other minority women are not. You will be hard pressed to find African-American or Hispanic-American women being given the platform in mainstream media outlets to casually express and wave away their prejudices towards men of their own race.
There are a couple reasons for this that I can think of. The first is that it is culturally unacceptable to express prejudice towards Black or Hispanic-Americans - regardless of who is expressing it, and the fact that this phenomenon exists illustrates the degree to which anti-Asian racism is tolerated. The second reason is that the dialogue and narrative of Asian-American inter-racial dating choices is conducted in one of two ways; it is either vulgar and hyper-sexualized by the women writing about it, or it is childlike and juvenile, often exhibiting the thinking and reasoning of a pubescent. Chen's piece is an example of the latter.
In my experience - limited as it might be - black and Hispanic women of college age and beyond, simply don't present or show themselves in their writing to have juvenile mentalities because they have to try so hard (especially black women) to overcome prejudice - childish flightiness won't work for other women of color. Juvenile mentalities in non-Asian women are just not tolerated and those who posses them are certainly not given many opportunities by mainstream America to display it, nor are they taken as seriously as Asian women seem to be. The irony here is that this childishness is an implicit aspect of the so-called "Asiaphile" phenomenon to which such Asiaphiles are attracted and one can only wonder if this also plays a role in the accessibility of some Asian women to the white male dominated media. That's is definitely food for thought.
And here is another reason for Asian men to avoid debating the IR debate - it gives voice and attention to people whose thinking is so simplistic that it allows the propagation of an Asian-American voice that lacks nuance and intelligence - that is the last thing we need. For instance.....
And this, perhaps is the most problematic aspect of Chen's piece. If we accept Chen's logic, Asian women and the choices they make are dependent on circumstances outside of their power to control; they are attracted to white men because of some television show they used to watch as a child that had a white hero, or they can't be blamed for their biases because they come from cultures that are biased (hey, so did I but I'm equal opportunity in my private life). In short, Chen has comically and unwittingly shown Asian women to be so dis-empowered that they have no control and choice over what they are able to think or do - their "choices" are actually pre-programmed responses to stimuli instilled from childhood. This is a remarkable claim and one that has some far-reaching philosophical and neuro-scientific implications - funnily enough, none of which Chen seemed to be consciously aware of.
So, in conclusion, by debating this undebatable subject, Asian men are helping to set the stage that gives voice and attention to a subject that is fundamentally irrelevant, and gives voice to people who have nothing significant to say at the expense of a nuanced and intelligent discussion of the Asian-American experience.
Don't let the dumb rule.
It's almost impossible to believe that only half-a-century ago dating and marrying outside of one's race was illegal in many states and could lead to imprisonment, social stigmatization, or even death. It has been a long and hard-earned struggle of individuals and civil rights groups that has slowly brought about legal changes and shifts in social attitudes such that the choice to marry outside one's race is no longer controlled by despotic legislation, although it must be said that social stigmas, though less apparent, still remain. For some demographics, society still maintains reservations about the desirability of miscegenation and thus although it is legal, dating and marrying someone of a different race is still a serious life-choice that is not discussed casually, or taken lightly. With one exception.
A recent article in the Huffington Post, written by Princeton student Vivienne Chen explores the nuanced bigotry involved in the increasingly common practice of Asian women who exclusively date white men. As Chen explains, the practice is a minefield of prejudice and racial stereotyping - which she casually accepts with a flighty shrug and a petulant sigh. Chen's article was written in response to these two articles which also bemoan the pitfalls involved when some Asian women exhibit biased thinking against all men of colour (including and sometimes, particularly Asian men) and choose to exclusively date white men.
We prefer Western men because we grew up in a culture that prefers Western men......Asian cultures can be remarkably xenophobic, and white people are sometimes given a "light-skinned pass." Long before the White Man set foot in China, having light skin was a sign of wealth and status, as it meant you didn't spend long hours toiling in the sun....But by constantly projecting this idea that men who specifically like Asian women are creepers, we risk making otherwise decent, respectable guys avoid dating Asian girls for fear of being labeled a creeper -- until we have nothing but creepers left.This is a strange thing to say, and a little bit silly - African-American and Hispanic-American women grow up with the same conditions yet don't appear to exhibit the same bias towards white men. Furthermore, both these groups value lighter skin, but haven't developed the same type of culture which discriminates against men from their own community and shows preference for white men. Even more remarkable about Chen's piece is that it is discussing cultural stereotypes within the context of inter-racial relationships in which the creation of negative stereotypes about men of colour was, and remains, one of the fundamental ways that American culture maintains social stigmas about marrying outside your race. Negative stereotypes about minority men have and continue to serve the purpose of discouraging white women from marrying outside their race. Yet, Chen ignores this social phenomenon and addresses the least damaging of stereotypes - that of white men as "Asiaphiles".
The results of these stereotypes have even more far-reaching effects than simply discouraging inter-racial dating. Stereotypes about Asian timidity embolden anti-Asian racism and have created a culture of casual, nonchalant, throw-away, prejudice that is expressed with little expectation of repercussion. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is the way this stereotype of Asian people may affect America's foreign policy actions in its sometimes delicate relations with Asian countries. Negative stereotypes of black men - violent and hyper-aggressive - drive police brutality and even contribute to the death of innocent black children.
Yet, despite this, Chen's choice is to focus on the "hardship" faced by a small minority of white men who are "unfairly" stereotyped as Asia-philes. And right there in a nutshell illustrates the second most important reason (the first is; I just don't care) for why I don't concern myself with the so-called "IR disparity debate" - in order to hold dialogue on the subject one has to often be able to actually comprehend the thought process of a muddled mind, which means that you have to understand the logic of stupidity. I'm glad to say that, so far, I have been unable to do this.
It takes a unique kind of privilege to be able to be so casual about a subject with as bloody a history as miscegenation, so much so that the author is able to acknowledge her own and other Asian women's biased thinking when it comes to stereotypes and prejudices about minority men (who in passed years bore the brunt of anti-miscegenation violence) yet can wave it away by citing reasons beyond their control - it's not their fault! Of course, it is also speaks volumes that Asian women are routinely given mainstream platforms to wax poetic about their prejudices and biases (most often against their own people and culture) in a way that other minority women are not. You will be hard pressed to find African-American or Hispanic-American women being given the platform in mainstream media outlets to casually express and wave away their prejudices towards men of their own race.
There are a couple reasons for this that I can think of. The first is that it is culturally unacceptable to express prejudice towards Black or Hispanic-Americans - regardless of who is expressing it, and the fact that this phenomenon exists illustrates the degree to which anti-Asian racism is tolerated. The second reason is that the dialogue and narrative of Asian-American inter-racial dating choices is conducted in one of two ways; it is either vulgar and hyper-sexualized by the women writing about it, or it is childlike and juvenile, often exhibiting the thinking and reasoning of a pubescent. Chen's piece is an example of the latter.
In my experience - limited as it might be - black and Hispanic women of college age and beyond, simply don't present or show themselves in their writing to have juvenile mentalities because they have to try so hard (especially black women) to overcome prejudice - childish flightiness won't work for other women of color. Juvenile mentalities in non-Asian women are just not tolerated and those who posses them are certainly not given many opportunities by mainstream America to display it, nor are they taken as seriously as Asian women seem to be. The irony here is that this childishness is an implicit aspect of the so-called "Asiaphile" phenomenon to which such Asiaphiles are attracted and one can only wonder if this also plays a role in the accessibility of some Asian women to the white male dominated media. That's is definitely food for thought.
And here is another reason for Asian men to avoid debating the IR debate - it gives voice and attention to people whose thinking is so simplistic that it allows the propagation of an Asian-American voice that lacks nuance and intelligence - that is the last thing we need. For instance.....
Those of us who come from more traditional Asian families know our parents would faint if we brought home an African American boyfriend; I've seen my friend's mother scream at her for having a Berkeley-educated Brazilian beau.People change - yes, even traditional Asian people - where's the stories of the traditional family who overcomes their prejudice and finally accepts their black son-in-law? What about those who are traditional but accept their children's decision to date or marry an African-American? These types of people actually exist and the main issue with Chen's point here is that her use of the word "traditional" itself has no basis for reference. What exactly does it mean to be a "traditional Asian family" - Chen suggests that it means an entity that is implicitly racist but this is simply ignorant. The term "traditional" has many possible meanings most of which don't assert racist attitudes. And there's more that shows the flawed thinking. Here she quotes Stephen Eliot of The Rumpus.....
To be desired is to be fetishized... this idea that I want someone to desire me but not objectify me with their desires is absurd. It's like saying I only want to date someone who is not attracted to people that look like me.Here's the thing, you already are a fetish. You are your lover's kink, exist within their circle of desire, starting with gender, and getting more specific from there." .........."In fact," he says, "there's no bad reason to love a person. A person is not less enlightened if they're only attracted to their own gender, or Asian women, or skinny people, or latex, or feet. You can objectify someone without treating them like an object."Overall, a thought-inducing quote yet is it true that there are "no bad reasons to love a person"? I'm not sure who Stephen Eliot is, but I'm sure that there are psychologists out there who would disagree with his conclusion. Pedophiles love and fetishize children (and, perhaps, are able to convince themselves that their abuse of children is an act of love), women who have extremely low self-esteem love men who continue to beat the crap out of them because they think that is the best that they can do and some even feel that the beating they receive somehow "proves" their partner's love. There are plenty of examples where one's reasons for loving someone are extremely bad and destructive, yet Chen seems to accept this piece of pop-psych unquestioningly and wants you to do the same. Mothers and Fathers, please don't teach this principle to your daughters - it will make them ripe for abuse. Here's more.....
Long before the White Man set foot in China, having light skin was a sign of wealth and status, as it meant you didn't spend long hours toiling in the sun. Remember, Asian cultures are the ones that mass market skin-lightening creams, where people often get eyelid surgery to make their eyes bigger, i.e. less Asian.So what? This doesn't justify one's decision wave away biased attitudes, acceptance of racial stereotypes, and prejudice. All it shows is that Chen (and women like her) haven't, don't, or perhaps aren't capable of, thinking logically and deeply about the choices they make, the attitudes they express, or the prejudices they casually accept and dismiss as being beyond their control.
And this, perhaps is the most problematic aspect of Chen's piece. If we accept Chen's logic, Asian women and the choices they make are dependent on circumstances outside of their power to control; they are attracted to white men because of some television show they used to watch as a child that had a white hero, or they can't be blamed for their biases because they come from cultures that are biased (hey, so did I but I'm equal opportunity in my private life). In short, Chen has comically and unwittingly shown Asian women to be so dis-empowered that they have no control and choice over what they are able to think or do - their "choices" are actually pre-programmed responses to stimuli instilled from childhood. This is a remarkable claim and one that has some far-reaching philosophical and neuro-scientific implications - funnily enough, none of which Chen seemed to be consciously aware of.
So, in conclusion, by debating this undebatable subject, Asian men are helping to set the stage that gives voice and attention to a subject that is fundamentally irrelevant, and gives voice to people who have nothing significant to say at the expense of a nuanced and intelligent discussion of the Asian-American experience.
Don't let the dumb rule.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Another Day That Should Live In Infamy
But Won't......Justifying Nuclear Holocaust.
I stumbled across this blogpost over on the Secret Asian Man blog from last year discussing the perennially topical issue that arises around the beginning of every December on the various justifications for America's use of the atomic bomb on Japan at the end of the Pacific War. As the cartoon strip suggests there is some sentiment that Japan deserved the bomb because of their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor whilst many others credit the use of the bomb as necessary to end the war quickly and painlessly and cite ending Japan's aggression and war crimes as providing a solid moral justification for the bombs. Underscoring most discussions on the subject is an understanding, implied or explicit, that Japan committed an immoral act when it carried out the attack, and that the use of the A-bomb on this day sixty-seven years ago was justified both militarily and morally.
The whole episode of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor has become an event that is etched into the identity of American culture. The bravery and resolve exhibited by the US and its armed forces during the war has come to symbolically represent the character and identity of the American nation and its people, that is, the defenders of freedom and upholders of moral justice. As countless movies, books, and historical commentaries suggest, the war in the Pacific is seen by America as a morally righteous war of liberation against a violent aggressor whose goal was to subjugate the peoples of Asia. Although the US has always had this sense of itself as the bastion of freedom and moral vigor, the Second World War cemented this notion within the identity of America and its culture.
Thus, by definition, the accepted historical accounts remind us that the Pacific war was fought in the name of freedom and liberty, and that using the atomic bombs, by implication, can be justified on these grounds. To my mind, this account ranks as one of the most epic historical frauds ever perpetrated, yet, remarkably, it is accepted uncritically by Western and, even worse, by Asian commentators alike. For mainstream America, this is understandable - the account is a significant reinforcement of American identity, but for Asian-Americans this historical account and its uncritical acceptance (of this and other dubious historical claims) is fundamental to understanding why (despite having such significant intellectual potential) Asian-America up to now, has largely failed to develop a potent cultural voice that is autonomous, original, oppositional, and unique to its own experience. At the same time, if this historical account is false (as I believe it is) then the moral basis justifying the use of the atom bombs fails.
The first thing to remember is that the war in the Pacific was not fought by the allies to liberate Asia, nor was it fought to allow democracy and political freedom to flourish. In fact, this idea is absurd because, with few exceptions, almost every nation in Asia was subjugated by the imperial powers of Europe, America and Japan. Liberty in Asia prior to WWII was a concept that threatened the colonial privilege and thus, any attempts to gain liberty was brutally suppressed by colonial armies. According to the accepted narrative, Japan invaded their Asian neighbours, defeating the armies of Europe and America who were "defending" these nations against tyranny, but the reality is that these armies of Europe and America were occupying forces whose job it was to suppress freedom movements of Asia's native peoples. History focuses on the terrible atrocities these western troops experienced in Japan's concentration camps, whilst ignoring the probability that some or many of these troops had themselves participated in brutal suppression of native people both prior to and after the war.
The war in Asia was fought by competing colonial powers to assert (in Japan's case) or re-assert (in the West's case) imperial rule over people who were already subjugated. This is an objective fact. The post-war actions of several of these imperial powers is a testament to this fact. After Japan's surrender, with America's financial and military backing, France, Britain, and the Netherlands, all returned to their former Asian colonies and began a war against the native peoples living there - committing atrocities in the process. To add insult to injury, these powers re-armed the Japanese troops who had recently surrendered in order to help them police and suppress independence movements in Indonesia and Indo-China. France even tried to overturn a wartime agreement that they had made with China in the hope of regaining their Chinese territories that they had lost in the war. More Asians in South-East Asia were killed struggling for their independence against their western "liberators" post-war than were killed in the Pacific war itself. That certainly doesn't sound like these nations were fighting the Japanese for my freedom or that of my ancestors.In this light, all moral arguments justifying the use of the atom bomb fail because at the end of the day, both Japan and the western allies were ultimately fighting over who would have the right to deny liberty to Asia.
So, winning the war against Japan simply meant that the US and Europe had one less imperial competitor for land and resources in Asia. What this means is that the atomic bombs simply enabled France, Britain, and the Netherlands to attempt to re-assert their suppression of Asian peoples and allowed them to kill millions of Asians in the process. The use of atomic bombs against Japan can only be morally defended if one does backflips to change history to suit one's narrative needs. Because all sides in the Pacific War were fighting to maintain an imperial system that suppressed Asian freedoms - by brutal means if needed - then no participants have the moral upper hand. Because the war in the Pacific was fought not to free but further subjugate Asian people, the moral premise for using the atomic bombs has no foundation. This shows the absurdity of trying to defend America's use of atom bombs on moral grounds.
The use of the bombs did not end any wars in Asia, but served as the impetus for the West's colonial powers to start more wars against Asian people. It is convenient to re-create history as a way to support the moral argument in favour of the bombs, but the cold hard fact is that America's nuclear prowess was the umbrella under which the old imperial powers of Europe were empowered to wage war against Asia. The war in Asia did not end with the defeat of Japan but continued for decades afterwards as Asian countries fought to win their independence.
I stumbled across this blogpost over on the Secret Asian Man blog from last year discussing the perennially topical issue that arises around the beginning of every December on the various justifications for America's use of the atomic bomb on Japan at the end of the Pacific War. As the cartoon strip suggests there is some sentiment that Japan deserved the bomb because of their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor whilst many others credit the use of the bomb as necessary to end the war quickly and painlessly and cite ending Japan's aggression and war crimes as providing a solid moral justification for the bombs. Underscoring most discussions on the subject is an understanding, implied or explicit, that Japan committed an immoral act when it carried out the attack, and that the use of the A-bomb on this day sixty-seven years ago was justified both militarily and morally.
The whole episode of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor has become an event that is etched into the identity of American culture. The bravery and resolve exhibited by the US and its armed forces during the war has come to symbolically represent the character and identity of the American nation and its people, that is, the defenders of freedom and upholders of moral justice. As countless movies, books, and historical commentaries suggest, the war in the Pacific is seen by America as a morally righteous war of liberation against a violent aggressor whose goal was to subjugate the peoples of Asia. Although the US has always had this sense of itself as the bastion of freedom and moral vigor, the Second World War cemented this notion within the identity of America and its culture.
Thus, by definition, the accepted historical accounts remind us that the Pacific war was fought in the name of freedom and liberty, and that using the atomic bombs, by implication, can be justified on these grounds. To my mind, this account ranks as one of the most epic historical frauds ever perpetrated, yet, remarkably, it is accepted uncritically by Western and, even worse, by Asian commentators alike. For mainstream America, this is understandable - the account is a significant reinforcement of American identity, but for Asian-Americans this historical account and its uncritical acceptance (of this and other dubious historical claims) is fundamental to understanding why (despite having such significant intellectual potential) Asian-America up to now, has largely failed to develop a potent cultural voice that is autonomous, original, oppositional, and unique to its own experience. At the same time, if this historical account is false (as I believe it is) then the moral basis justifying the use of the atom bombs fails.
The first thing to remember is that the war in the Pacific was not fought by the allies to liberate Asia, nor was it fought to allow democracy and political freedom to flourish. In fact, this idea is absurd because, with few exceptions, almost every nation in Asia was subjugated by the imperial powers of Europe, America and Japan. Liberty in Asia prior to WWII was a concept that threatened the colonial privilege and thus, any attempts to gain liberty was brutally suppressed by colonial armies. According to the accepted narrative, Japan invaded their Asian neighbours, defeating the armies of Europe and America who were "defending" these nations against tyranny, but the reality is that these armies of Europe and America were occupying forces whose job it was to suppress freedom movements of Asia's native peoples. History focuses on the terrible atrocities these western troops experienced in Japan's concentration camps, whilst ignoring the probability that some or many of these troops had themselves participated in brutal suppression of native people both prior to and after the war.
The war in Asia was fought by competing colonial powers to assert (in Japan's case) or re-assert (in the West's case) imperial rule over people who were already subjugated. This is an objective fact. The post-war actions of several of these imperial powers is a testament to this fact. After Japan's surrender, with America's financial and military backing, France, Britain, and the Netherlands, all returned to their former Asian colonies and began a war against the native peoples living there - committing atrocities in the process. To add insult to injury, these powers re-armed the Japanese troops who had recently surrendered in order to help them police and suppress independence movements in Indonesia and Indo-China. France even tried to overturn a wartime agreement that they had made with China in the hope of regaining their Chinese territories that they had lost in the war. More Asians in South-East Asia were killed struggling for their independence against their western "liberators" post-war than were killed in the Pacific war itself. That certainly doesn't sound like these nations were fighting the Japanese for my freedom or that of my ancestors.In this light, all moral arguments justifying the use of the atom bomb fail because at the end of the day, both Japan and the western allies were ultimately fighting over who would have the right to deny liberty to Asia.
So, winning the war against Japan simply meant that the US and Europe had one less imperial competitor for land and resources in Asia. What this means is that the atomic bombs simply enabled France, Britain, and the Netherlands to attempt to re-assert their suppression of Asian peoples and allowed them to kill millions of Asians in the process. The use of atomic bombs against Japan can only be morally defended if one does backflips to change history to suit one's narrative needs. Because all sides in the Pacific War were fighting to maintain an imperial system that suppressed Asian freedoms - by brutal means if needed - then no participants have the moral upper hand. Because the war in the Pacific was fought not to free but further subjugate Asian people, the moral premise for using the atomic bombs has no foundation. This shows the absurdity of trying to defend America's use of atom bombs on moral grounds.
The use of the bombs did not end any wars in Asia, but served as the impetus for the West's colonial powers to start more wars against Asian people. It is convenient to re-create history as a way to support the moral argument in favour of the bombs, but the cold hard fact is that America's nuclear prowess was the umbrella under which the old imperial powers of Europe were empowered to wage war against Asia. The war in Asia did not end with the defeat of Japan but continued for decades afterwards as Asian countries fought to win their independence.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Some Olympic Musings
Asian Men Walking Tall.
Although often billed as a gathering of the world's athletes coming together to compete in the name of goodwill and international understanding, the Olympics are just as often a proxy for nations to vent their political frustrations on one another through winning on the field of sport. In some ways and to some minds, winning at competition reflects the superiority of a political, social, or even moral, system of a given country. With this in mind I fully expected these London Olympics to provide us with some tense competition and commentary that reflected the present-day economic and political reality of our times. I wasn't disappointed.
Unsurprisingly, the nail-biting anxiety (and the accompanying xenophobic hostility) felt in the West about China's economic rise and its increasing influence in the developing world has been reflected in reactions to China's Olympic successes. Various outraged (and unfounded) insinuations of doping made against victorious Chinese competitors were a simple reflection of Western society's resentful attitudes towards Asians - it is a given that any success or excellence has to be the result of some kind of cheating or underhandedness. Even worse is the fact that stereotypically weak Asians are proving to be just as physically capable as their non-Asian competitors. It is said that when the human mind is presented with evidence that contradicts what it has believed for its entire existence, it will respond rage against the new information and attempt to find any ad-hoc rationalization (regardless of how irrational or unreasonable it may be) to will enable it to maintain its false belief against all the evidence - then the mind will resent you for making it see a truth it didn't want to see.
This is what has been so clearly displayed at London 2012 - stereotypes about Asians have crumbled in plain sight of everyone and the resulting outrage and resentment in some quarters indicates the degree to which the Western mind that has created a xenophobic fantasy about Asian inferiority that it is unwilling to let go of.
The most charming thing about the Chinese athletes is that they seem oblivious to this negative racialization of their success as they speed past their competitors. They simply don't know that their ethnicity is supposed to be an obstacle to athletic excellence. One way that I have noticed this is in the swagger of the Chinese men's gymnastics team.....
These guys range in height from between 5'3 to 5'6, but they don't seem to have heard that being short and Asian means that they aren't masculine. Their confidence and self-assurance was so jarring because American culture insists that Asian men have no reason to possess these qualities of confidence and self-assurance. Of course, the reason that they may seem so confident is that they haven't been raised in a culture that mocks their masculinity and racializes their achievements and potential - the world has been presented to them in a way that it might not have been presented to Asian men raised in the US, a world in which their race need not influence their opportunities, ambitions, or what is expected of them. The Japanese men's gymnastics team has also performed extremely well, taking the silver in the team event - even though they could have done without the Boy Band feminine hairstyles....
Having said that, the guy on the right is 18-year-old Ryohei Kato whose looks have apparently caught the attention of thousands of Chinese female fans who have overcome decades of mutual Sino-Japanese distrust to register their lust for him. Women like pretty boys sometimes!
In other good news for Asian men - and for Asian soccer fans - Japan and South Korea have both reached the semi-finals of Olympic soccer tournament. Japan will play Mexico, and Korea will play Brazil in the next round. Although not considered anywhere as important as the World Cup - mainly because most of the players making the teams must be under 23 - the Olympic soccer tournament is still a good indication of a country's pool of talent. Japan have played some really nice football, whilst S. Korea apparently outperformed and outplayed their more highly-regarded British opponents. It is also interesting to note the reaction of a Swiss player to discovering that Asians aren't racially weaker after his side was beaten by the Koreans. People don't like having their strongly held beliefs challenged.
On a final note, it has been interesting to note the success of China's female athletes. For a culture that gave us footbinding - a practice that was ended decades ago, but for which China is still being irrationally castigated - and is held by many as a hell on earth for women, the Chinese seem to hold women's athletics in high esteem, and also seem to be heavily invested in promoting sporting excellence for their women athletes. In this regard, it might even be suggested that Chinese women have greater opportunities in sport participation and success than their Western counterparts. Who knows, maybe China isn't still culturally stuck in the 9th Century like many commentators would have us believe.
Although often billed as a gathering of the world's athletes coming together to compete in the name of goodwill and international understanding, the Olympics are just as often a proxy for nations to vent their political frustrations on one another through winning on the field of sport. In some ways and to some minds, winning at competition reflects the superiority of a political, social, or even moral, system of a given country. With this in mind I fully expected these London Olympics to provide us with some tense competition and commentary that reflected the present-day economic and political reality of our times. I wasn't disappointed.
Unsurprisingly, the nail-biting anxiety (and the accompanying xenophobic hostility) felt in the West about China's economic rise and its increasing influence in the developing world has been reflected in reactions to China's Olympic successes. Various outraged (and unfounded) insinuations of doping made against victorious Chinese competitors were a simple reflection of Western society's resentful attitudes towards Asians - it is a given that any success or excellence has to be the result of some kind of cheating or underhandedness. Even worse is the fact that stereotypically weak Asians are proving to be just as physically capable as their non-Asian competitors. It is said that when the human mind is presented with evidence that contradicts what it has believed for its entire existence, it will respond rage against the new information and attempt to find any ad-hoc rationalization (regardless of how irrational or unreasonable it may be) to will enable it to maintain its false belief against all the evidence - then the mind will resent you for making it see a truth it didn't want to see.
This is what has been so clearly displayed at London 2012 - stereotypes about Asians have crumbled in plain sight of everyone and the resulting outrage and resentment in some quarters indicates the degree to which the Western mind that has created a xenophobic fantasy about Asian inferiority that it is unwilling to let go of.
The most charming thing about the Chinese athletes is that they seem oblivious to this negative racialization of their success as they speed past their competitors. They simply don't know that their ethnicity is supposed to be an obstacle to athletic excellence. One way that I have noticed this is in the swagger of the Chinese men's gymnastics team.....
These guys range in height from between 5'3 to 5'6, but they don't seem to have heard that being short and Asian means that they aren't masculine. Their confidence and self-assurance was so jarring because American culture insists that Asian men have no reason to possess these qualities of confidence and self-assurance. Of course, the reason that they may seem so confident is that they haven't been raised in a culture that mocks their masculinity and racializes their achievements and potential - the world has been presented to them in a way that it might not have been presented to Asian men raised in the US, a world in which their race need not influence their opportunities, ambitions, or what is expected of them. The Japanese men's gymnastics team has also performed extremely well, taking the silver in the team event - even though they could have done without the Boy Band feminine hairstyles....
Having said that, the guy on the right is 18-year-old Ryohei Kato whose looks have apparently caught the attention of thousands of Chinese female fans who have overcome decades of mutual Sino-Japanese distrust to register their lust for him. Women like pretty boys sometimes!
In other good news for Asian men - and for Asian soccer fans - Japan and South Korea have both reached the semi-finals of Olympic soccer tournament. Japan will play Mexico, and Korea will play Brazil in the next round. Although not considered anywhere as important as the World Cup - mainly because most of the players making the teams must be under 23 - the Olympic soccer tournament is still a good indication of a country's pool of talent. Japan have played some really nice football, whilst S. Korea apparently outperformed and outplayed their more highly-regarded British opponents. It is also interesting to note the reaction of a Swiss player to discovering that Asians aren't racially weaker after his side was beaten by the Koreans. People don't like having their strongly held beliefs challenged.
On a final note, it has been interesting to note the success of China's female athletes. For a culture that gave us footbinding - a practice that was ended decades ago, but for which China is still being irrationally castigated - and is held by many as a hell on earth for women, the Chinese seem to hold women's athletics in high esteem, and also seem to be heavily invested in promoting sporting excellence for their women athletes. In this regard, it might even be suggested that Chinese women have greater opportunities in sport participation and success than their Western counterparts. Who knows, maybe China isn't still culturally stuck in the 9th Century like many commentators would have us believe.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Help Joseph Pham.
I received this comment on my blog post on Joseph Pham that linked to website set up to support Pham and contribute to his defence.
Here is a post from the site in English giving some background to the story.....
The site tells you how you can contribute. Please help the guy out in whatever way you can.
Here is a post from the site in English giving some background to the story.....
Seven years. Seven years.
For seven years, day after day, your family has been harassed. Diapers and dog feces have been thrown at your children, your home windows have been shattered, your car damaged, and your life threatened. All this happens simply because the music filtered from your speakers is in Vietnamese, the food you cook smells of fish sauce, and your skin is hued in golden tones.
This is the ugly face of discrimination, prejudice, racism, and outright hatred. In such a volatile atmosphere where your pleas of help throughout the system have been ignored and danger stands to take away everything you love in the wink of an eye, would you suffer the loss of those you have sworn to protect or would you fight for the safety of your family?
On the evening of Saturday, June 9th 2012, when Brian Wilson pounded on his neighbor’s door with words of fury shaking the summer night, this was the terrible decision which Joseph Pham faced.
Who is Joseph Pham?
Joseph Pham is an American. In 1982 Joseph fled his native country of Vietnam to seek a better life. The United States of America, land of the free and the home of the brave, offered a welcoming beacon. Since the day he set foot on her soil, Joseph has worked hard to fulfill his American Dream, earning his US citizenship, raising a beautiful family of five, and enjoying the freedoms only America can offer.
In his youth, Joseph lived in Cedar Rapids, Iowa with the Moyle’s, his American foster family. For nine years he was loved and treated like a biological son. He attended McKinley Junior High and Washington High School where his driven spirit and desire for self-improvement earned him exceptional grades and honors.
After high school, he moved to California to be reunited with his biological parents. Until their deaths in 2002, he supported and cared for his much respected elders. During this time as well, he met and married his wife, Thu Van Nguyen. They became a family of three with the birth of their oldest daughter Kathie. Eventually, Nancy came along and finally Jack arrived to complete the family portrait.
The Nightmare Begins
In 2005, Joseph and his family decided to move back to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He desired a return to his Midwestern roots where his memory recalled the safety and security of small town life. Joseph sought to overcome the sad void created by the death of his birth parents and build a new life in Iowa, where his young family could come to better know the foster parents that loved and raised him.
Gathering his wife, two daughters, and only son, he made the journey from Westminster, California to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. They found the house of their dreams and settled in. Unfortunately, the Moses’ weren’t pleased with the new family in the neighborhood and set about creating a nightmare.
The neighborly relationship was instantly marred by racial tension. The Pham family was verbally harassed on a regular basis. The Moses family would yell out hateful messages, such as: “We don’t want you here,” “You’re not welcome here,” and “Go back to where you came from.” Eventually, the verbal harassment escalated into violence.Windows were broken, muddy tire prints and torn grass offered evidence of vehicles driven across the Pham’s property, mail was stolen and discarded in mutilated states, feces was thrown at the children, vehicles were vandalized, and the list of harassments continue, spanning for years on end and in various manners. Seeking to quell the injustices brought against them, the Pham’s repeatedly called the police department and numerous police reports were filed.
In 2010, the Pham’s sought legal action against Jamie Moses when a rock thrown by his hand shattered the family’s front window and left Kathie Pham with multiple cuts and bruises as well as friend who was sleeping over. The lawsuit sought reconciliation for damages including emotional distress, pain/suffering, property damage, punitive damages and court costs. Jamie Moses pleaded guilty to fifth-degree criminal mischief for breaking the Pham’s windows. He was ordered to pay for repair of the window which totaled 190 dollars. The judge filed a no-contact order between Jamie and the Pham family as well.Still, peace was hard in coming. Shortly after the case closed, Jamie and Tracy Moses divorced. Jamie moved out and Brian Wilson, moved in. The same harassments continued, the same prejudices, the same racism, simply a different face.
On June the 9th, 2012, the family had just returned from a graduation party. Danger tainted the air, flavored in the same bitter taste of hatred for no other reason than to hate. When Brian Wilson’s fist pounded the front door and his angry shouts rang through the night, Joseph Pham’s instincts took over and the rest of the story is one that remains to be told with time.
Please Help
Joseph Pham is currently charged with three counts of attempted murder and intimidation with a dangerous weapon. His family waits for their visit to the Linn County jail twice a week, the maximum days they are allowed, in 30 minute increments.Each day the mother with three children cower behind closed windows and locked doors, afraid to live any longer in the home that is now a thing of their nightmares. People drive by with shouts of support and disdain. At night they sleep with friends, where no one will know, where no one will scream words of hate or shake fists of rage.
Thu Van is a housewife with three young children to care for and feed alone. Their protector and financial head is gone. All that remains are fear, questions, helplessness…, bills…, legal fees, and tears.
If you are able, please offer Joseph Pham and his family aid in any means possible at this time of hardship. Defense fees are high. Times are hard. His family is in need of your support to fight for his justice and freedom.The most surprising thing about this case is how silent the Asian-American blogosphere has been. For me, this case is a perfect illustration of how America's cultural anti-Asian racial antagonism promotes racial harassment and permits prejudice whilst censuring those Asians who stand up to it.
The site tells you how you can contribute. Please help the guy out in whatever way you can.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Vacation!
Just a short announcement that I will be on vacation until July 18th. I'm not sure if there will be internet access where I'm going so feel free to comment but I may not be able to respond or even publish comments until the 18th. See you soon!
European And Australian Immigrants.....
......Are They Bad For America?
The 8Asians blog published a post recently discussing an article on CNN's website in which a religion scholar, Stephen Prothero, notes the potential effects of increased Asian immigration on America's religiosity. According to Prothero, because a lower percentage of Asian immigrants report that religion is "very important in their lives", an increase in Asian immigration may thus lead to a less religious America.
The first issue with the article is its vagueness. What exactly does it mean to say that a person or group is less religious? How is religiosity defined? I think that most American Christians attend only church once a week and maybe a mid-week church function and the number of people who pray at least once-a-day varies from around five out of ten, to ninety out of ten depending on denomination. But even this may not accurately or completely reflect religiosity in daily life. For example, the spiritual concept of "mindfulness" is very much grounded in religious concepts and an individual who gives a few bucks to the homeless guy on the corner every morning may well be considered to be acting in a mindful way as derived from whatever religious doctrine they follow, yet may not consider themselves to be following a religious life.
Furthermore, "mindfulness" is a more difficult concept to quantify because throughout the day, individuals may well be carrying out "mindful" acts but may not necessarily view this as being an act of religious practice although they may understand that it is a reflection of their religious belief. Plus, because self-reporting is by definition subjective, what constitutes religiosity will mean vastly different things to different people. For some, praying five-times a day may not be religious enough and for others praying once-a-week might seem devotional. So, the premise of the article is so overly vague to lack any real meaning and would really seem to amount to little more than a musing that seems to take some random statistics and extrapolate, to an almost far-fetched degree, a potentially momentous social shift, based on a vague premise. But, Asians should, by now, be used to hearing white men making dramatic generalized suggestions about our community based on vague premises and dubious reasoning.
Yet, what is revealing about the article is the way that it reflects an unfair, and perhaps biased, attitude towards immigration from non-white countries, whilst no consideration is given to the effects of immigration from white countries. For instance, in the past twenty years, around 4.5 million immigrants have settled in the US from predominantly "white" countries of Europe and Australia. Although, relatively low compared to immigration from Asia and Latin America, it is not an insignificant number. Significantly for this discussion is the fact that Europe (both Western and Eastern) are reported to have some of the highest rates of unbelief in the world, ranging from 20%-35% of populations in some Western European countries up to almost 50% of populations in some Eastern European countries reporting no religion.
Coincidentally (or not) in the passed two decades the dialogue on religious belief has developed into a culture war as more and more atheists have become outspoken about their disbelief and push for a less religious America (a result of European immigration perhaps?). At the forefront of this "movement" have been Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins two British-born, high-profile atheists, one of whom (Hitchens) is a naturalized American citizen, the other (Dawkins) lived and worked at the University of California, and is a regular visitor to the US and, for all I know, may well be a permanent resident. Between them they have sold almost three million books in which they suggest that religious believers may be stupid, wicked hypocrites, and that religion is the most corrupting thing ever to afflict the human race. From Australia another atheist, Peter Singer, has lived and worked since 1999 at Princeton University. Singer is less well-known, but still an influential philosopher, whose materialism-derived utilitarian ethics has caused controversy amongst the religious and non-religious alike.
These three highly influential public figures whose work has greatly influenced American thought in the past decade or so, and made atheism and materialistic ethics a major part of the dialogue on belief, have encouraged Americans to abandon religion and embrace atheism. Yet, no Americans have come forward to suggest that European immigrants might be making America less religious, even though that would seem to be a reasonable and logical conclusion. There just doesn't seem to be the same concern about the societal effects on American religious practice of an influx of Europeans into America.
One could argue that the numbers aren't sufficient enough to make such a major impact on general society. But I would submit that higher "social capital" of white people more than makes up for the low numbers. What I mean by this, is that white people (especially men) as a group and individuals are given more value, authority, and credibility in American society than other ethnicities, such that it may be easier for them to attain positions of influence and authority within the culture. The case of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Singer are clear examples of this; these three men have undoubtedly had more influence over America's attitudes towards religion than all of the Asian immigrant 711 owners and Asians in academia and finance put together, yet,
it doesn't cross anybody's mind that European immigrants might contribute significantly making America less religious.
But the concerns about the effects of immigration from white countries do not stop with the religious question. In recent years, the rising influence of extreme right-wing thinking in Western and Eastern Europe has caused some considerable concern amongst rights groups across the continent. Recent elections in France and Greece show that far-right parties have gained almost 20% and 7% of the vote respectively. Even more problematic are the declarations of mainstream leaders of France, Britain, and Germany that multiculturalism has failed which reflects a shift away from tolerant attitudes towards ethnic minorities.
Given these facts, it would be reasonable to conclude that of the millions of European immigrants that have settled in the US over the passed two decades, a sizeable number of them would carry with them attitudes that may be, at best, opposed to a multicultural society, and at worst, harbour extreme right-wing sympathies. Either way, white people are given the benefit of the doubt most times, and (as Hitchens and Dawkins illustrate) we can expect that their ethnic origin will not be considered with regards to the effect their presence or ideas will have on society, it is reasonable to presume that any European immigrants who harbour these attitudes will have their ideas easily and seamlessly absorbed and adopted by mainstream America. Because white immigrants are a true unknown - after all, who is studying white immigrants and the attitudes that they bring with them? - they truly represent a potentially grave threat to America's multicultural existence.
For many immigrants, Asian or otherwise, the US has come to represent an ideal in which regardless of the circumstances of one's birth and origin, one can come to America and find personal success and dream that one day your own child could become President, with nothing to hold you back but your own demons. America's ideals of liberty, justice, religious and political freedom, fairness, and the belief that you can control your own destiny, are what attracts the millions of Asian immigrants to America. The growing shift in Europe towards intolerance of minorities, multiculturalism, and (ever more increasingly) religious practice stand in stark contrast to very core values that have made America the beacon of freedom that it has come to represent. Yet, the idea that European immigration could have a major negative influence on these American ideals is never examined.
Instead, America notes the impact on religious belief from Asian immigrants who have no substantial voice in the political arena or, more significantly, have no influence or voice in America's cultural dialogue (the one exception to this is the Dalai Lama who hangs out religiously with Hollywood celebs as they meditate to the tune of Kumbaya). Most absurd is the lack of meaningful evidence for making this kind of projection. There's little evidence that Asian immigration up until now has had any impact on religious belief, even though in some states and cities Asians account for up to a third of the population. In an brazen display of double-speak Prothero's article points out the religiosity of Asian immigrants, as well as the tendency for immigrants to become more religious once they arrive in the US. He then makes a vague reference to the high rate of the "unaffiliated", and then suggests that this may reflect a possible trend to less religiosity. For Prothero, 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Most disturbing is the character and tone of the article which follows a common pattern that I alluded to here, and is the routine way in which mainstream America discusses its "Asian problem". White commentators can make just about any allegation or statement about Asian people and be given the platform to say it even though the evidence for it may be tenuous at best. Even worse in this case is the fact that it is white European immigrants - up to 50% of whom may have no belief in God - and in the case of many (like Hitchens) actively seek an end to religious practice, who would most logically present the biggest threat to America's religious practice and even freedoms. Yet, no white social or religious expert worries that European immigration will strengthen these attitudes, even though that would seem to be the most logical conclusion.
The issue of ethnic Caucasian immigrants from Europe and Australia bringing extreme right-wing attitudes and opposition to multiculturalism (which in reality means non-white multiculturalism) with them is an even bigger concern. An America that fails at multiculturalism, is a failed America that no longer stands for freedom and equality.
The 8Asians blog published a post recently discussing an article on CNN's website in which a religion scholar, Stephen Prothero, notes the potential effects of increased Asian immigration on America's religiosity. According to Prothero, because a lower percentage of Asian immigrants report that religion is "very important in their lives", an increase in Asian immigration may thus lead to a less religious America.
The first issue with the article is its vagueness. What exactly does it mean to say that a person or group is less religious? How is religiosity defined? I think that most American Christians attend only church once a week and maybe a mid-week church function and the number of people who pray at least once-a-day varies from around five out of ten, to ninety out of ten depending on denomination. But even this may not accurately or completely reflect religiosity in daily life. For example, the spiritual concept of "mindfulness" is very much grounded in religious concepts and an individual who gives a few bucks to the homeless guy on the corner every morning may well be considered to be acting in a mindful way as derived from whatever religious doctrine they follow, yet may not consider themselves to be following a religious life.
Furthermore, "mindfulness" is a more difficult concept to quantify because throughout the day, individuals may well be carrying out "mindful" acts but may not necessarily view this as being an act of religious practice although they may understand that it is a reflection of their religious belief. Plus, because self-reporting is by definition subjective, what constitutes religiosity will mean vastly different things to different people. For some, praying five-times a day may not be religious enough and for others praying once-a-week might seem devotional. So, the premise of the article is so overly vague to lack any real meaning and would really seem to amount to little more than a musing that seems to take some random statistics and extrapolate, to an almost far-fetched degree, a potentially momentous social shift, based on a vague premise. But, Asians should, by now, be used to hearing white men making dramatic generalized suggestions about our community based on vague premises and dubious reasoning.
Yet, what is revealing about the article is the way that it reflects an unfair, and perhaps biased, attitude towards immigration from non-white countries, whilst no consideration is given to the effects of immigration from white countries. For instance, in the past twenty years, around 4.5 million immigrants have settled in the US from predominantly "white" countries of Europe and Australia. Although, relatively low compared to immigration from Asia and Latin America, it is not an insignificant number. Significantly for this discussion is the fact that Europe (both Western and Eastern) are reported to have some of the highest rates of unbelief in the world, ranging from 20%-35% of populations in some Western European countries up to almost 50% of populations in some Eastern European countries reporting no religion.
Coincidentally (or not) in the passed two decades the dialogue on religious belief has developed into a culture war as more and more atheists have become outspoken about their disbelief and push for a less religious America (a result of European immigration perhaps?). At the forefront of this "movement" have been Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins two British-born, high-profile atheists, one of whom (Hitchens) is a naturalized American citizen, the other (Dawkins) lived and worked at the University of California, and is a regular visitor to the US and, for all I know, may well be a permanent resident. Between them they have sold almost three million books in which they suggest that religious believers may be stupid, wicked hypocrites, and that religion is the most corrupting thing ever to afflict the human race. From Australia another atheist, Peter Singer, has lived and worked since 1999 at Princeton University. Singer is less well-known, but still an influential philosopher, whose materialism-derived utilitarian ethics has caused controversy amongst the religious and non-religious alike.
These three highly influential public figures whose work has greatly influenced American thought in the past decade or so, and made atheism and materialistic ethics a major part of the dialogue on belief, have encouraged Americans to abandon religion and embrace atheism. Yet, no Americans have come forward to suggest that European immigrants might be making America less religious, even though that would seem to be a reasonable and logical conclusion. There just doesn't seem to be the same concern about the societal effects on American religious practice of an influx of Europeans into America.
One could argue that the numbers aren't sufficient enough to make such a major impact on general society. But I would submit that higher "social capital" of white people more than makes up for the low numbers. What I mean by this, is that white people (especially men) as a group and individuals are given more value, authority, and credibility in American society than other ethnicities, such that it may be easier for them to attain positions of influence and authority within the culture. The case of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Singer are clear examples of this; these three men have undoubtedly had more influence over America's attitudes towards religion than all of the Asian immigrant 711 owners and Asians in academia and finance put together, yet,
it doesn't cross anybody's mind that European immigrants might contribute significantly making America less religious.
But the concerns about the effects of immigration from white countries do not stop with the religious question. In recent years, the rising influence of extreme right-wing thinking in Western and Eastern Europe has caused some considerable concern amongst rights groups across the continent. Recent elections in France and Greece show that far-right parties have gained almost 20% and 7% of the vote respectively. Even more problematic are the declarations of mainstream leaders of France, Britain, and Germany that multiculturalism has failed which reflects a shift away from tolerant attitudes towards ethnic minorities.
Given these facts, it would be reasonable to conclude that of the millions of European immigrants that have settled in the US over the passed two decades, a sizeable number of them would carry with them attitudes that may be, at best, opposed to a multicultural society, and at worst, harbour extreme right-wing sympathies. Either way, white people are given the benefit of the doubt most times, and (as Hitchens and Dawkins illustrate) we can expect that their ethnic origin will not be considered with regards to the effect their presence or ideas will have on society, it is reasonable to presume that any European immigrants who harbour these attitudes will have their ideas easily and seamlessly absorbed and adopted by mainstream America. Because white immigrants are a true unknown - after all, who is studying white immigrants and the attitudes that they bring with them? - they truly represent a potentially grave threat to America's multicultural existence.
For many immigrants, Asian or otherwise, the US has come to represent an ideal in which regardless of the circumstances of one's birth and origin, one can come to America and find personal success and dream that one day your own child could become President, with nothing to hold you back but your own demons. America's ideals of liberty, justice, religious and political freedom, fairness, and the belief that you can control your own destiny, are what attracts the millions of Asian immigrants to America. The growing shift in Europe towards intolerance of minorities, multiculturalism, and (ever more increasingly) religious practice stand in stark contrast to very core values that have made America the beacon of freedom that it has come to represent. Yet, the idea that European immigration could have a major negative influence on these American ideals is never examined.
Instead, America notes the impact on religious belief from Asian immigrants who have no substantial voice in the political arena or, more significantly, have no influence or voice in America's cultural dialogue (the one exception to this is the Dalai Lama who hangs out religiously with Hollywood celebs as they meditate to the tune of Kumbaya). Most absurd is the lack of meaningful evidence for making this kind of projection. There's little evidence that Asian immigration up until now has had any impact on religious belief, even though in some states and cities Asians account for up to a third of the population. In an brazen display of double-speak Prothero's article points out the religiosity of Asian immigrants, as well as the tendency for immigrants to become more religious once they arrive in the US. He then makes a vague reference to the high rate of the "unaffiliated", and then suggests that this may reflect a possible trend to less religiosity. For Prothero, 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Most disturbing is the character and tone of the article which follows a common pattern that I alluded to here, and is the routine way in which mainstream America discusses its "Asian problem". White commentators can make just about any allegation or statement about Asian people and be given the platform to say it even though the evidence for it may be tenuous at best. Even worse in this case is the fact that it is white European immigrants - up to 50% of whom may have no belief in God - and in the case of many (like Hitchens) actively seek an end to religious practice, who would most logically present the biggest threat to America's religious practice and even freedoms. Yet, no white social or religious expert worries that European immigration will strengthen these attitudes, even though that would seem to be the most logical conclusion.
The issue of ethnic Caucasian immigrants from Europe and Australia bringing extreme right-wing attitudes and opposition to multiculturalism (which in reality means non-white multiculturalism) with them is an even bigger concern. An America that fails at multiculturalism, is a failed America that no longer stands for freedom and equality.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Happy Father's Day
An American Hero.
I just came across this story over at Angry Asian Man - a man of Vietnamese descent living in Iowa, has been charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of intimidation with a dangerous weapon after he shot at his neighbours following years of being on the receiving end of racial harassment and intimidation. The incident took place after Pham had being verbally abused and threatened by his neighbour who had banged on Pham's door and demanded that he come out and fight. According to his family, the normally even tempered and law-abiding Pham, snapped after years of similar intimidation and defended himself in the only language his racist neighbour apparently could understand. Here's more.......
This story from 2009, the LA riots of twenty years ago, and now Pham's story illustrate one of the ways that anti-Asian racism is perpetuated in society. In the case of the student, he acted just like any other school-age boy would have acted, but school authorities overlooked the racial harassment that he had been subjected to, and allowed the boy who had perpetrated it to go unpunished, whilst at the same time the Asian boy is suspended and criminally charged. In the case of the LA riots, the Koreans were targeted because of their race, and were widely castigated by the media for defending themselves.
On a personal note - and some of you readers may have experienced something similar - my first experience of racism occurred the day after I started school when I was five. Two boys a year ahead of me started using racial slurs and physically attacking me in full view of teachers and playground monitors who watched but did nothing. I put up with it for a day and a half, until lunchtime on my third day of school when I turned on my tormentors after they had again kicked and punched me and started flailing on one of them. The other kid became afraid and ran off like a bitch to tell a teacher. Of course, the two white boys were given no reprimand but I, on the other hand, was angrily scolded and told that I was a thug. Luckily for me, but not for the school, my parents didn't stay quiet and they marched up to the school with some extended family members and made sure the school understood the error that they had made.
As you can see, in all of these situations, mainstream America is empowered to openly commit acts of racial violence and harassment against Asians, yet it is the Asian victims who are castigated when we retaliate (like any human being would do) in any shape or form. This is one of the ways that anti-Asian prejudice is propagated throughout American society and it is how mainstream America effectively sanctions racial baiting and violence towards Asian people.
That's why it is possible for anti-Asian prejudice to be openly expressed by Americans of all kinds, from hate-driven neighbours to the most popular cultural figures and influential politicians, and especially notable is the degree of hate crimes being committed against Asian children in America's schools. Yes, it is true that media depictions normalize anti-Asian attitudes, but it is the apathy, or particpation of institutions and authorities that uphold this normalization of racist behaviours.
Vilifying and criminalizing Asians who have been pushed over the edge emotionally and physically by persistent racial harassment or violence in their daily lives, and probably compounded by routine and pervasive anti-Asian racism in America's media, is tantamount to legitimizing the practice. In regards to this latter point it is worth remembering that there is a scene in the recent Men In Black III movie in which the two heroes find humour in racial murder and employ slapstick violence to basically re-enact the racist murder of Vincent Chin - turning racial violence against Asians into a normal function of the interaction with Asian people. It should be no surprise then, that some Asians are pushed to the very edge of endurance in the face of persistent and pervasive racism.
On this score we should also remember the death of Asian-American soldier, Danny Chen, who committed suicide after enduring weeks of racial abuse from other members of his unit. His tormentors are likely to be punished with a severe slap on the wrist. It would seem that these are the choices offered to Asian-Americans; endure racism passively and good naturedly or commit suicide. The third choice of defending yourself and your family in the same way that white Americans are expected to (after all, the hero who, often violently, stands up to oppression is glorified in American culture), is gravely discouraged at the best of times, and punished at the worst.
In the case of Pham (and the Korean immigrants in the 1992 pogrom), they were doing what any decent father would do; defending their families. That makes Pham a hero in my book.
I just came across this story over at Angry Asian Man - a man of Vietnamese descent living in Iowa, has been charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of intimidation with a dangerous weapon after he shot at his neighbours following years of being on the receiving end of racial harassment and intimidation. The incident took place after Pham had being verbally abused and threatened by his neighbour who had banged on Pham's door and demanded that he come out and fight. According to his family, the normally even tempered and law-abiding Pham, snapped after years of similar intimidation and defended himself in the only language his racist neighbour apparently could understand. Here's more.......
Family members of a Cedar Rapids man accused of trying to kill his neighbors say he snapped after enduring years of racial slurs, broken windows and thrown feces.....
....Police said the shooting stemmed from a disagreement between the two men. Pham’s family contends it started years earlier, citing police reports, a restraining order and even a lawsuit as evidence of years of harassment from neighbors, including Wilson and Moses.....
..Both Springer and Kathie Pham said Joseph Pham had called the police several times, but the harassment continued....
..Pham filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Jamie Moses, Tracy Moses’ ex-husband. He claimed Moses had broken two windows of the Phams’ home, driven his vehicle in their yard and torn up the grass, destroyed their mail, fired a shotgun over their property, contacted DirecTV to cancel their service and thrown feces at Kathie Pham. The lawsuit seeks damages including emotional distress, pain and suffering, property damage, punitive damages and court costs...
...Springer said Saturday’s incident began when Pham was working outside and Brian Wilson came up to the fence and started making racial slurs. He told Pham to come outside and fight him, Pham’s niece said, and then he went to the front door and started banging on it.This is a common experience for Asian people and it is one of the ways that anti-Asian racism is perpetuated to keep Asians in their place. The way it works is that some anti-Asian racist will provoke and harass an Asian, but because this type of behaviour is normalized in American society (in fact, its cultural depictions of Asians can be said to be a form of racial harassment) any attempts at self-defence are reined in by authorities and the media.
This story from 2009, the LA riots of twenty years ago, and now Pham's story illustrate one of the ways that anti-Asian racism is perpetuated in society. In the case of the student, he acted just like any other school-age boy would have acted, but school authorities overlooked the racial harassment that he had been subjected to, and allowed the boy who had perpetrated it to go unpunished, whilst at the same time the Asian boy is suspended and criminally charged. In the case of the LA riots, the Koreans were targeted because of their race, and were widely castigated by the media for defending themselves.
On a personal note - and some of you readers may have experienced something similar - my first experience of racism occurred the day after I started school when I was five. Two boys a year ahead of me started using racial slurs and physically attacking me in full view of teachers and playground monitors who watched but did nothing. I put up with it for a day and a half, until lunchtime on my third day of school when I turned on my tormentors after they had again kicked and punched me and started flailing on one of them. The other kid became afraid and ran off like a bitch to tell a teacher. Of course, the two white boys were given no reprimand but I, on the other hand, was angrily scolded and told that I was a thug. Luckily for me, but not for the school, my parents didn't stay quiet and they marched up to the school with some extended family members and made sure the school understood the error that they had made.
As you can see, in all of these situations, mainstream America is empowered to openly commit acts of racial violence and harassment against Asians, yet it is the Asian victims who are castigated when we retaliate (like any human being would do) in any shape or form. This is one of the ways that anti-Asian prejudice is propagated throughout American society and it is how mainstream America effectively sanctions racial baiting and violence towards Asian people.
That's why it is possible for anti-Asian prejudice to be openly expressed by Americans of all kinds, from hate-driven neighbours to the most popular cultural figures and influential politicians, and especially notable is the degree of hate crimes being committed against Asian children in America's schools. Yes, it is true that media depictions normalize anti-Asian attitudes, but it is the apathy, or particpation of institutions and authorities that uphold this normalization of racist behaviours.
Vilifying and criminalizing Asians who have been pushed over the edge emotionally and physically by persistent racial harassment or violence in their daily lives, and probably compounded by routine and pervasive anti-Asian racism in America's media, is tantamount to legitimizing the practice. In regards to this latter point it is worth remembering that there is a scene in the recent Men In Black III movie in which the two heroes find humour in racial murder and employ slapstick violence to basically re-enact the racist murder of Vincent Chin - turning racial violence against Asians into a normal function of the interaction with Asian people. It should be no surprise then, that some Asians are pushed to the very edge of endurance in the face of persistent and pervasive racism.
On this score we should also remember the death of Asian-American soldier, Danny Chen, who committed suicide after enduring weeks of racial abuse from other members of his unit. His tormentors are likely to be punished with a severe slap on the wrist. It would seem that these are the choices offered to Asian-Americans; endure racism passively and good naturedly or commit suicide. The third choice of defending yourself and your family in the same way that white Americans are expected to (after all, the hero who, often violently, stands up to oppression is glorified in American culture), is gravely discouraged at the best of times, and punished at the worst.
In the case of Pham (and the Korean immigrants in the 1992 pogrom), they were doing what any decent father would do; defending their families. That makes Pham a hero in my book.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Five Little Words
Shit Asian Girls Say to Asian Men
A commenter (mwei) linked to this video that made me cackle! Enjoy......
I think that most Asian guys living in America have been told all or most of these things by some Asian girl or another at some point in their lives. I've had this experience twice and both times the girls involved embarrassed themselves more than they bothered me.
The first time this happened I was on a road trip and had stopped at a 711 type store, somewhere in Houston. As I came out I noticed an Asian girl walking in. Since she was also Asian I presumed that she wouldn't mind helping a brother with directions. LOL. As I got closer and as I said "Excuse me" she turned her nose up and said "I like white guys" and brushed past me. Then an older white dude who I hadn't noticed walking just behind her asked me if I needed something and so I asked him for the directions. He seemed happy to help me. Funny thing was, he turned out to be her partner or friend and seemed embarrassed by her behaviour and was actually decent enough to fuss at her for being rude. She blushed and blinked sheepishly.
The second time this happened was even more bizarre. A white girl I was dating had an uncle in his fifties who had recently married an Asian-American girl of 26, and he thought it would be a good idea to to have my girlfriend and I over for dinner since there was this "Asian connection thingy". Well it wasn't a good idea. Apparently, he hadn't told his wife that I was Asian - I think he wanted to surprise her with how progressive his family was - so guess what she said when she saw me? That's right, as I reached out my hand to greet her she said something like "I like white guys!" and then looked at me with confusion (who knows why she was confused - even more importantly, who cares?). I looked over at my girlfriend and then at her uncle and I could see that they were wearing the same tight, mirthless, smile that I knew was spread across my face. Anyways, it was an uncomfortable night, with a lot of tight smiles, fake mutual interest, and disingenuous calls to "do it again sometime". But at least the food seemed authentic.
Hope you enjoyed the video and it made you laugh. That is one of the first steps in getting passed this IR disparity thing - laugh at people like that, then ignore them, and finally find a voice that makes you a shaper of the culture that brought about the situation that makes people ashamed and embarrassed to be with others of their own race.
I don't write (or even think) about the IR disparity with anger because I just don't care who people date or marry. And I think that the endless discussions about it do little to change the situation and may, in fact, harm the community because all the other issues that we face receive far less attention or even passion than this one subject. The fact is, you can't change people, you just can't and the more you tell people that something is bad or not to your liking, then the more they will want to do it. Yet, there is no doubt that if a situation exists within a society in which it is considered shameful, undesirable, or embarrassing to date or marry others like yourself then there is something seriously wrong.
But that doesn't mean we should set out on pointless rants at individuals because that changes nothing - remember it is almost impossible to convince someone out of something that they believe. You can't force an alcoholic into sobriety, and you can't force someone who has been inculcated with demeaning stereotypes about their race to not feel shame about their race. People cannot and will not be changed according to someone else's will.
I think it is actually far easier to change a culture than to change an individual, and if you do want individuals to agree your way of thinking, then it is their culture that you have to change because people follow the trends of their culture. If you let yourself be dragged down into the dialog of the IR disparity and the flighty choices of Asian quasi-feminism then you're allowing the society that demeans you to dictate your voice and purpose. Even worse, you are giving too much voice and influence to people who have little to say other than "I only date white guys". Airheads have the most influential voices in our community because everyone reacts to those five little words. It's no wonder Asians catch a lot of shit.
A commenter (mwei) linked to this video that made me cackle! Enjoy......
I think that most Asian guys living in America have been told all or most of these things by some Asian girl or another at some point in their lives. I've had this experience twice and both times the girls involved embarrassed themselves more than they bothered me.
The first time this happened I was on a road trip and had stopped at a 711 type store, somewhere in Houston. As I came out I noticed an Asian girl walking in. Since she was also Asian I presumed that she wouldn't mind helping a brother with directions. LOL. As I got closer and as I said "Excuse me" she turned her nose up and said "I like white guys" and brushed past me. Then an older white dude who I hadn't noticed walking just behind her asked me if I needed something and so I asked him for the directions. He seemed happy to help me. Funny thing was, he turned out to be her partner or friend and seemed embarrassed by her behaviour and was actually decent enough to fuss at her for being rude. She blushed and blinked sheepishly.
The second time this happened was even more bizarre. A white girl I was dating had an uncle in his fifties who had recently married an Asian-American girl of 26, and he thought it would be a good idea to to have my girlfriend and I over for dinner since there was this "Asian connection thingy". Well it wasn't a good idea. Apparently, he hadn't told his wife that I was Asian - I think he wanted to surprise her with how progressive his family was - so guess what she said when she saw me? That's right, as I reached out my hand to greet her she said something like "I like white guys!" and then looked at me with confusion (who knows why she was confused - even more importantly, who cares?). I looked over at my girlfriend and then at her uncle and I could see that they were wearing the same tight, mirthless, smile that I knew was spread across my face. Anyways, it was an uncomfortable night, with a lot of tight smiles, fake mutual interest, and disingenuous calls to "do it again sometime". But at least the food seemed authentic.
Hope you enjoyed the video and it made you laugh. That is one of the first steps in getting passed this IR disparity thing - laugh at people like that, then ignore them, and finally find a voice that makes you a shaper of the culture that brought about the situation that makes people ashamed and embarrassed to be with others of their own race.
I don't write (or even think) about the IR disparity with anger because I just don't care who people date or marry. And I think that the endless discussions about it do little to change the situation and may, in fact, harm the community because all the other issues that we face receive far less attention or even passion than this one subject. The fact is, you can't change people, you just can't and the more you tell people that something is bad or not to your liking, then the more they will want to do it. Yet, there is no doubt that if a situation exists within a society in which it is considered shameful, undesirable, or embarrassing to date or marry others like yourself then there is something seriously wrong.
But that doesn't mean we should set out on pointless rants at individuals because that changes nothing - remember it is almost impossible to convince someone out of something that they believe. You can't force an alcoholic into sobriety, and you can't force someone who has been inculcated with demeaning stereotypes about their race to not feel shame about their race. People cannot and will not be changed according to someone else's will.
I think it is actually far easier to change a culture than to change an individual, and if you do want individuals to agree your way of thinking, then it is their culture that you have to change because people follow the trends of their culture. If you let yourself be dragged down into the dialog of the IR disparity and the flighty choices of Asian quasi-feminism then you're allowing the society that demeans you to dictate your voice and purpose. Even worse, you are giving too much voice and influence to people who have little to say other than "I only date white guys". Airheads have the most influential voices in our community because everyone reacts to those five little words. It's no wonder Asians catch a lot of shit.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Are Asians Becoming Whiter?
The Diversity Paradox.
I recently finished a book called "The Diversity Paradox" written by couple of sociologists (I believe) that collates information taken from the most recent census and extrapolates on the changing face of America's ethnic make-up and the way in which this is changing America's view of race and race relations. The study asks how, or if, the increasing numbers of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are changing white America's relationships and attitudes towards its ethnic minorities and suggests that high inter-marriage between Asians or Latinos with whites might be creating a new ethnic line of demarcation in which whites, Asians, and Latinos fall on one side of the barrier, and a disadvantaged black group on the other.
Overall, I thought that the book was very thoroughly researched but I found myself noticing that many of the suggested conclusions of the study defied my observations and presented an overly optimistic (and, even unrealistic) view of the nature of race-relations in America, both in the present and for the future, and seemed to overlook some vital aspects of the Asian-American experience that might have cast doubt on the book's conclusions.
For instance, having spent almost the entire book exploring the idea that high out-marriage rates of Asian-Americans (women, that is) might indicate a blurring of the boundary between white and Asian groups and be leading to greater integration and assimilation (and hence, I presume, greater tolerance), the authors add a half paragraph disclaimer at the back of the book that "there are gender differences (in out-marriage rates) that require further study". Uh-huh. That, to me, renders the conclusions of the previous chapters somewhat inconclusive. But more about this later.
To cover this book, I've focused on two conclusions the study makes, one of which I thought was contentious the other was simply worthy of comment, so I'm not claiming this to be a comprehensive critique.
The first point that the book makes and with which I agree, is the observation that immigrants choose to align with whiteness as opposed to blackness. This is interesting because at the time of early Asian immigration, although blacks were classified as citizens, Asians argued for citizenship based on the idea that they were white and thus eligible even though they could have just have easily (and who knows, perhaps more successfully) argued that they were eligible based on being "black".
So, almost built into the process of acceptance into the privileged class (particularly for a visible minority like Asians) involved an implicit acknowledgement, and perhaps even acquiescence to the notion of an inevitable inferior social status of the black under-class. Interestingly, even since the early days of non-European immigration America's racism created a perceived need for separation amongst its visible minorities as one of the means to maintain the racial hierarchy. In recent years, there has been a blurring of this phenomenon, in the sense that aligning with blacks culturally has become fashionable, although it has to be said that white Americans seem as likely to do this as are immigrant groups.
It is also interesting to note that for Asian-Americans in the culture business, this process of aligning with whiteness has become the most likely avenue of success for those aspiring to mainstream recognition. Hence, much creative work produced by Asian-Americans involves an exaggerated depiction of Asian cultural and human backwardness, an obsequious deference to an imagined concept of white cultural perfection, as well as an almost universal absence of non-white and non-Asian characters, and even perhaps a deliberate blindness to wider social issues that might highlight negative aspects of the white culture that is being aspired to.
The next point of interest is the suggestion that inter-marriage indicates blurring of racial and social boundaries and even, perhaps, acceptance into mainstream society and can be seen as the final step to full assimilation. According to sociologists inter-marriage is the final boundary that is overcome by immigrant groups leading to full integration or assimilation. Recalling the experiences of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe, it had been noted that inter-marriage seemed to be an indication of society's acceptance of these groups as true Americans and led (or coincided) with increased prosperity and social empowerment. Yet, I cannot help but feel as though applying this reasoning to Asian-Americans ignores huge aspects of the Asian experience that were not faced by these earlier Caucasian immigrants, and which continue to be a barrier to Asian-Americans in the present.
Because Asian-Americans grow up in a society that routinely denigrates them, their race, racial characteristics, and their cultures, many of them develope negative attitudes towards themselves and others who look like them. This attitude is often and routinely expressed by Asian-Americans from internet forums and online communities, to works of literature and film but the fact is that Asian children in America learn one thing from American culture and that is to feel shame and embarrassment about themselves. It is a constant stream of exposure to the ubiquitous portrayals and images of Asian deficiencies that proliferate throughout American culture that is the basis upon which many Asians form their ideas about themselves and their identities - naturally they tend not to hold their cultures, race, or even themselves, in high esteem.
This can only place doubt on the conclusion that inter-marriage with Asian-Americans somehow diminishes negative attitudes, or increases tolerance towards Asians because, quite simply, many Asians themselves adopt these negative attitudes. So even though at this point I couldn't state categorically that Asian high out-marriage rates do not increase tolerance, I think it is reasonable to say that cultural denigration of Asians creates a sense of shame and a desire for distance from their culture of origin and ethnicity. Anecdotally, I (and I'm sure many of you) have encountered a good number of Asian-Americans (both who out-date/marry or do not) who, at best, have few positive things to say about Asians, or at worst, are almost vehement in their hostility to their own race or culture. And, no, it's not just date-only-white-guys-Asian women who do this!
Of course, for the Asian minority, high out-marriage rates occur predominantly between Asian women and white men, whilst out-marriage rates for Asian men are relatively low. This should cast some degree of doubt on the conclusion of it being an indicator of improved attitudes because, historically, anti-miscegenation laws and attitudes were primarily designed to prevent white women from marrying or having relationships with minority men, whilst at the same time, white men were routinely engaging in miscegenation with black or Asian women. Because anti-miscegenation had traditionally focused on preventing Asian men from assimilating into mainstream culture it would seem more reasonable to take out-marriage rates for Asian men as a more accurate gauge of a general decrease in negative attitudes.
These out-marriage differences within the Asian community suggests that, at best, it might be more accurate to say that in addition to racial lines that are being re-drawn, for the Asian community there is also a gender line being drawn within the community, with Asian women having smoother access to, and therefore falling on, the "white" side of the divide and Asian men outside of it. The gender imbalance in out-marriage rates for Asian men and women only indicates that it is, perhaps, Asian women who are being "promoted" into whiteness and that the gender differences that are perfunctorily acknowledged at the end of the book is actually indicative of an increasingly profound social separation between Asian men and women. You can think of this as a kind of model minority within a model minority.
Consider also that it has been estimated that between 1945 and 1965 there was something in the region of 100,000 marriages between American G.Is and Asian "war brides", yet, during that period and the subsequent twenty years, attitudes towards Asians didn't really improve and it could be argued that anti-Asianism increased beginning around the late 1970's and continuing, perhaps to this day. So altogether I think it is a dubious claim that inter-marriage carries with it an implicit and inevitable decrease in negative attitudes towards Asians - if high out-marriage rates of Asian women in the 1950's and 60's didn't decrease racism, why should we reasonably believe that it is having this effect now?.
Finally, the biggest obstacle to the Asian minority becoming fully accepted and assimilated (and which is not addressed in the book) lies in the unique political and historical relationship between the US and various Asian countries. Historically, America's attitude towards Asia is founded on its past colonial aspirations. Because America has historically seen itself in civilizational conflict with Asian nations, its attitudes towards Asian people has been and remains, combative, uncompromising, xenophobic, hostile, and intolerant. This is evident to this day - political rhetoric often exhibits these types of qualities and, as I often point out, American culture is suffused with a sadistic violence in its portrayals of Asian men. In fact, recent studies that show Asian children experience high levels of racial harassment from peers and that in the workplace Asians are harassed for any reason, would also indicate that the high inter-marriage rates have so far done little to promote tolerance.
Because immigrants from Europe have never had to overcome this type of civilizational antagonism they have not had to endure the protracted xenophobic stereotyping, political combativeness, and uncompromising hostility that characterizes the Asian experience. I would suggest that anti-Asian attitudes are as common and widely-held now as they were at the time of the Exclusion Acts and the Second World War. It is because Asian children are exposed to hateful images and stereotypes that many of them adopt these same attitudes making it highly plausible that marrying an Asian-American is unlikely to contribute to an increase tolerance or positive attitudes towards Asian people.
I recently finished a book called "The Diversity Paradox" written by couple of sociologists (I believe) that collates information taken from the most recent census and extrapolates on the changing face of America's ethnic make-up and the way in which this is changing America's view of race and race relations. The study asks how, or if, the increasing numbers of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are changing white America's relationships and attitudes towards its ethnic minorities and suggests that high inter-marriage between Asians or Latinos with whites might be creating a new ethnic line of demarcation in which whites, Asians, and Latinos fall on one side of the barrier, and a disadvantaged black group on the other.
Overall, I thought that the book was very thoroughly researched but I found myself noticing that many of the suggested conclusions of the study defied my observations and presented an overly optimistic (and, even unrealistic) view of the nature of race-relations in America, both in the present and for the future, and seemed to overlook some vital aspects of the Asian-American experience that might have cast doubt on the book's conclusions.
For instance, having spent almost the entire book exploring the idea that high out-marriage rates of Asian-Americans (women, that is) might indicate a blurring of the boundary between white and Asian groups and be leading to greater integration and assimilation (and hence, I presume, greater tolerance), the authors add a half paragraph disclaimer at the back of the book that "there are gender differences (in out-marriage rates) that require further study". Uh-huh. That, to me, renders the conclusions of the previous chapters somewhat inconclusive. But more about this later.
To cover this book, I've focused on two conclusions the study makes, one of which I thought was contentious the other was simply worthy of comment, so I'm not claiming this to be a comprehensive critique.
The first point that the book makes and with which I agree, is the observation that immigrants choose to align with whiteness as opposed to blackness. This is interesting because at the time of early Asian immigration, although blacks were classified as citizens, Asians argued for citizenship based on the idea that they were white and thus eligible even though they could have just have easily (and who knows, perhaps more successfully) argued that they were eligible based on being "black".
So, almost built into the process of acceptance into the privileged class (particularly for a visible minority like Asians) involved an implicit acknowledgement, and perhaps even acquiescence to the notion of an inevitable inferior social status of the black under-class. Interestingly, even since the early days of non-European immigration America's racism created a perceived need for separation amongst its visible minorities as one of the means to maintain the racial hierarchy. In recent years, there has been a blurring of this phenomenon, in the sense that aligning with blacks culturally has become fashionable, although it has to be said that white Americans seem as likely to do this as are immigrant groups.
It is also interesting to note that for Asian-Americans in the culture business, this process of aligning with whiteness has become the most likely avenue of success for those aspiring to mainstream recognition. Hence, much creative work produced by Asian-Americans involves an exaggerated depiction of Asian cultural and human backwardness, an obsequious deference to an imagined concept of white cultural perfection, as well as an almost universal absence of non-white and non-Asian characters, and even perhaps a deliberate blindness to wider social issues that might highlight negative aspects of the white culture that is being aspired to.
The next point of interest is the suggestion that inter-marriage indicates blurring of racial and social boundaries and even, perhaps, acceptance into mainstream society and can be seen as the final step to full assimilation. According to sociologists inter-marriage is the final boundary that is overcome by immigrant groups leading to full integration or assimilation. Recalling the experiences of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe, it had been noted that inter-marriage seemed to be an indication of society's acceptance of these groups as true Americans and led (or coincided) with increased prosperity and social empowerment. Yet, I cannot help but feel as though applying this reasoning to Asian-Americans ignores huge aspects of the Asian experience that were not faced by these earlier Caucasian immigrants, and which continue to be a barrier to Asian-Americans in the present.
Because Asian-Americans grow up in a society that routinely denigrates them, their race, racial characteristics, and their cultures, many of them develope negative attitudes towards themselves and others who look like them. This attitude is often and routinely expressed by Asian-Americans from internet forums and online communities, to works of literature and film but the fact is that Asian children in America learn one thing from American culture and that is to feel shame and embarrassment about themselves. It is a constant stream of exposure to the ubiquitous portrayals and images of Asian deficiencies that proliferate throughout American culture that is the basis upon which many Asians form their ideas about themselves and their identities - naturally they tend not to hold their cultures, race, or even themselves, in high esteem.
This can only place doubt on the conclusion that inter-marriage with Asian-Americans somehow diminishes negative attitudes, or increases tolerance towards Asians because, quite simply, many Asians themselves adopt these negative attitudes. So even though at this point I couldn't state categorically that Asian high out-marriage rates do not increase tolerance, I think it is reasonable to say that cultural denigration of Asians creates a sense of shame and a desire for distance from their culture of origin and ethnicity. Anecdotally, I (and I'm sure many of you) have encountered a good number of Asian-Americans (both who out-date/marry or do not) who, at best, have few positive things to say about Asians, or at worst, are almost vehement in their hostility to their own race or culture. And, no, it's not just date-only-white-guys-Asian women who do this!
Of course, for the Asian minority, high out-marriage rates occur predominantly between Asian women and white men, whilst out-marriage rates for Asian men are relatively low. This should cast some degree of doubt on the conclusion of it being an indicator of improved attitudes because, historically, anti-miscegenation laws and attitudes were primarily designed to prevent white women from marrying or having relationships with minority men, whilst at the same time, white men were routinely engaging in miscegenation with black or Asian women. Because anti-miscegenation had traditionally focused on preventing Asian men from assimilating into mainstream culture it would seem more reasonable to take out-marriage rates for Asian men as a more accurate gauge of a general decrease in negative attitudes.
These out-marriage differences within the Asian community suggests that, at best, it might be more accurate to say that in addition to racial lines that are being re-drawn, for the Asian community there is also a gender line being drawn within the community, with Asian women having smoother access to, and therefore falling on, the "white" side of the divide and Asian men outside of it. The gender imbalance in out-marriage rates for Asian men and women only indicates that it is, perhaps, Asian women who are being "promoted" into whiteness and that the gender differences that are perfunctorily acknowledged at the end of the book is actually indicative of an increasingly profound social separation between Asian men and women. You can think of this as a kind of model minority within a model minority.
Consider also that it has been estimated that between 1945 and 1965 there was something in the region of 100,000 marriages between American G.Is and Asian "war brides", yet, during that period and the subsequent twenty years, attitudes towards Asians didn't really improve and it could be argued that anti-Asianism increased beginning around the late 1970's and continuing, perhaps to this day. So altogether I think it is a dubious claim that inter-marriage carries with it an implicit and inevitable decrease in negative attitudes towards Asians - if high out-marriage rates of Asian women in the 1950's and 60's didn't decrease racism, why should we reasonably believe that it is having this effect now?.
Finally, the biggest obstacle to the Asian minority becoming fully accepted and assimilated (and which is not addressed in the book) lies in the unique political and historical relationship between the US and various Asian countries. Historically, America's attitude towards Asia is founded on its past colonial aspirations. Because America has historically seen itself in civilizational conflict with Asian nations, its attitudes towards Asian people has been and remains, combative, uncompromising, xenophobic, hostile, and intolerant. This is evident to this day - political rhetoric often exhibits these types of qualities and, as I often point out, American culture is suffused with a sadistic violence in its portrayals of Asian men. In fact, recent studies that show Asian children experience high levels of racial harassment from peers and that in the workplace Asians are harassed for any reason, would also indicate that the high inter-marriage rates have so far done little to promote tolerance.
Because immigrants from Europe have never had to overcome this type of civilizational antagonism they have not had to endure the protracted xenophobic stereotyping, political combativeness, and uncompromising hostility that characterizes the Asian experience. I would suggest that anti-Asian attitudes are as common and widely-held now as they were at the time of the Exclusion Acts and the Second World War. It is because Asian children are exposed to hateful images and stereotypes that many of them adopt these same attitudes making it highly plausible that marrying an Asian-American is unlikely to contribute to an increase tolerance or positive attitudes towards Asian people.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Hollywood's Anti-Asian Tourette's
Hitting Chinese Is Fun.
I came across this article just today from the ever-Sino-xenophobic British news site, The Daily Mail, in which we learn that China is censoring around 15 minute long scene from the movie, Men In Black III. Funnily enough, I just saw this movie this past weekend and was in the process of writing a post about this very scene! Apparently, China's censors have taken exception to the scene for seemingly vastly different reasons than I have - that is if you choose to believe the spin from an explicitly hostile-to-East-Asians publication.
In the offending scene the two heroes - Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones - enter a typically Hollywood hate-inspired version of a Chinese restaurant (complete with disgusting hygiene, disgusting food sources, and dirty Chinese employees) and proceed to interrogate the restaurant's owner, who, it turns out happens to be an actual slimy alien, as opposed to an actual slimy Chinaman. Either way, he is a filthy and disgusting alien possessing none of the common values of decency, hygiene, and courage, that America holds dear. In fact, he possesses the same characteristics that America most often attributes to Asian people (especially men), so, even though he is an alien in disguise as an Asian, he actually possesses the disgusting qualities that Hollywood also insists Asians possess.
Almost as an inevitable consequence of this self-evident lack of humanity theChinese, alien, Chinese Alien is violently interrogated by Tommy Lee Jones during which he is repeatedly hit about the head with an object and ridiculed, with Will Smith in the background making light of the whole mindless and casually violent episode with his cheerful quippiness. In the ensuing fight all of the "Chinese" employees turn out to be aliens and suffer an epic ass-whipping - one of whom is brutally beaten with a pan until he falls to ground dead, the side of his head caved in.
Of course, there is a kind of absurd violence that is characteristic of the whole Men In Black franchise - the fight scenes are filled with aliens who explode into a green goo or whose deaths are cartoonishly gruesome - but you won't find many (if any at all) with the sadistic brutality exhibited in the restaurant scene. American culture has a perverse love for this type of explicit depiction of cold, frenzied violence against Asian men and it may be the most common manner in which Asian men are represented in Americas's media. In fact, as this fight scene from the 1950's movie, The Manchurian Candidate, the depiction of sadistic violence against Asian men has been popular for decades.........
That scene was one of the first instances where I had seen any kind of depiction of an Asian man and the experience opened my eyes - especially that maniacal sadism at the end in which the Asian man lies defeated at Sinatra's feet receiving his brutal comeuppance for not knowing his place. What I came to realize is that America, as expressed through its culture, views itself as being locked in some kind of heroic conflict with Asia in which any and all means of violence are justified. This is as true now as it was in the 1950's, and has been true ever since the first Western warships sailed into Asian ports to claim Asian territories for themselves.
It should come as no surprise that the Asian-American experience in the 21st Century is often characterized by frenzied violence arising seemingly out of nowhere and manifesting as random acts of sadistic rage, yet paradoxically - and chillingly - there is a casualness about anti-Asian violence that is empowered by widespread social indifference. These types of depictions document, propagate, and perhaps even create, America's cultural acceptance and maybe even desire for violence against Asian people.
In fact, I would suggest that this attitude is so ingrained in Americas's consciousness that it has become integral to the American identity, so much so that these American expressions of "two minutes hate" have a "Tourettes" quality about them. This example from the Men In Black is a clear case of this - the whole scene would have worked just as well without the sadistic violence, which seems to manifest out of nowhere, for no reason pertinent to the plot, and for no other reason than to express sadistic violence towards Asians yet occurring almost reflexively.
Of course, none of this would seem relevant if it weren't for the fact that violence towards Asians seems to be a normalized and an accepted mode of interaction for mainstream Americans with its East Asian minority. Racially biased bullying and violence towards Asian children in America's schools is extremely common and often goes unaddressed by school authorities. Mirroring widespread movie depictions of comically casual, sadistic, violence, some Asian kids are beaten for the fun of it. Then there's the hilarious practice of throwing old Asian people onto train tracks. Of course, there is the racially inflected harassment and violence towards Asian merchants both in the inner cities and the suburbs as well as escalating degrees of harassment in the workplace. Everywhere you look the violence and harassment of Asian people is characterized by its casualness and often sheer sadistic enjoyment in its perpetration.
At this point a causative relationship between casual violence against Asians in the media and real life hasn't been determined (but who is investigating?), but there's little doubt that the absence of mainstream opposition suggests that America is comfortable, or even enjoys, the fantasy of inflicting sadistic violence on Asian men. Consider, for example, if the characters at the receiving end of this violence in the Men In Black movie had been African-American - my guess is that it wouldn't have made it passed the editing room.
I came across this article just today from the ever-Sino-xenophobic British news site, The Daily Mail, in which we learn that China is censoring around 15 minute long scene from the movie, Men In Black III. Funnily enough, I just saw this movie this past weekend and was in the process of writing a post about this very scene! Apparently, China's censors have taken exception to the scene for seemingly vastly different reasons than I have - that is if you choose to believe the spin from an explicitly hostile-to-East-Asians publication.
In the offending scene the two heroes - Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones - enter a typically Hollywood hate-inspired version of a Chinese restaurant (complete with disgusting hygiene, disgusting food sources, and dirty Chinese employees) and proceed to interrogate the restaurant's owner, who, it turns out happens to be an actual slimy alien, as opposed to an actual slimy Chinaman. Either way, he is a filthy and disgusting alien possessing none of the common values of decency, hygiene, and courage, that America holds dear. In fact, he possesses the same characteristics that America most often attributes to Asian people (especially men), so, even though he is an alien in disguise as an Asian, he actually possesses the disgusting qualities that Hollywood also insists Asians possess.
Almost as an inevitable consequence of this self-evident lack of humanity the
Of course, there is a kind of absurd violence that is characteristic of the whole Men In Black franchise - the fight scenes are filled with aliens who explode into a green goo or whose deaths are cartoonishly gruesome - but you won't find many (if any at all) with the sadistic brutality exhibited in the restaurant scene. American culture has a perverse love for this type of explicit depiction of cold, frenzied violence against Asian men and it may be the most common manner in which Asian men are represented in Americas's media. In fact, as this fight scene from the 1950's movie, The Manchurian Candidate, the depiction of sadistic violence against Asian men has been popular for decades.........
That scene was one of the first instances where I had seen any kind of depiction of an Asian man and the experience opened my eyes - especially that maniacal sadism at the end in which the Asian man lies defeated at Sinatra's feet receiving his brutal comeuppance for not knowing his place. What I came to realize is that America, as expressed through its culture, views itself as being locked in some kind of heroic conflict with Asia in which any and all means of violence are justified. This is as true now as it was in the 1950's, and has been true ever since the first Western warships sailed into Asian ports to claim Asian territories for themselves.
It should come as no surprise that the Asian-American experience in the 21st Century is often characterized by frenzied violence arising seemingly out of nowhere and manifesting as random acts of sadistic rage, yet paradoxically - and chillingly - there is a casualness about anti-Asian violence that is empowered by widespread social indifference. These types of depictions document, propagate, and perhaps even create, America's cultural acceptance and maybe even desire for violence against Asian people.
In fact, I would suggest that this attitude is so ingrained in Americas's consciousness that it has become integral to the American identity, so much so that these American expressions of "two minutes hate" have a "Tourettes" quality about them. This example from the Men In Black is a clear case of this - the whole scene would have worked just as well without the sadistic violence, which seems to manifest out of nowhere, for no reason pertinent to the plot, and for no other reason than to express sadistic violence towards Asians yet occurring almost reflexively.
Of course, none of this would seem relevant if it weren't for the fact that violence towards Asians seems to be a normalized and an accepted mode of interaction for mainstream Americans with its East Asian minority. Racially biased bullying and violence towards Asian children in America's schools is extremely common and often goes unaddressed by school authorities. Mirroring widespread movie depictions of comically casual, sadistic, violence, some Asian kids are beaten for the fun of it. Then there's the hilarious practice of throwing old Asian people onto train tracks. Of course, there is the racially inflected harassment and violence towards Asian merchants both in the inner cities and the suburbs as well as escalating degrees of harassment in the workplace. Everywhere you look the violence and harassment of Asian people is characterized by its casualness and often sheer sadistic enjoyment in its perpetration.
At this point a causative relationship between casual violence against Asians in the media and real life hasn't been determined (but who is investigating?), but there's little doubt that the absence of mainstream opposition suggests that America is comfortable, or even enjoys, the fantasy of inflicting sadistic violence on Asian men. Consider, for example, if the characters at the receiving end of this violence in the Men In Black movie had been African-American - my guess is that it wouldn't have made it passed the editing room.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Some White Women Like Asian Guys.
A Good Reason To Struggle Academically?
I probably shouldn't be so facetious about this story but I'll say what many of us are thinking but might not feel comfortable expressing! According to this story (and here) a married 36-year-old teacher engaged in a sexual relationship with her 16-year-old-student.........
The truth is, when guys hear stories of 16 year-old boys being seduced by their teachers we tend to be far less disgusted by it than if we hear of a male teacher taking advantage of a 16 year-old girl. The reason is that many of us could only have wished that one of our own hot teachers would have given us cannabis and seduced us when we were sixteen.
Personally, I wouldn't have complained if a female teacher had shown that kind of interest. Of course, if I were a parent I would imagine that there is a great degree of anxiety over trust being broken and that is understandable. But, I wonder if the student involved will ever come to feel as though he was taken advantage of, or if he will remember the whole experience with fondness? Maybe that's a dumb question.
I probably shouldn't be so facetious about this story but I'll say what many of us are thinking but might not feel comfortable expressing! According to this story (and here) a married 36-year-old teacher engaged in a sexual relationship with her 16-year-old-student.........
I'm sure that many sixteen-year-olds would consider this to be the perfect girlfriend. The teacher carried out a year-long affair with student, Kevin Eng (whom I presume is Asian), whilst she was suppose to be tutoring him. The affair was discovered after the student's girlfriend became suspicious after witnessing the couple flirting with each other, and then alerted authorities. Killjoy.[the] high-school English teacher allegedly plied their son with cannabis and repeatedly had sex with him in her office....Married teacher Erin Sayar, 36, was meant to be tutoring Kevin Eng twice a week at James Madison High School in Brooklyn, New York - but their relationship quickly took a sexual turn.
The truth is, when guys hear stories of 16 year-old boys being seduced by their teachers we tend to be far less disgusted by it than if we hear of a male teacher taking advantage of a 16 year-old girl. The reason is that many of us could only have wished that one of our own hot teachers would have given us cannabis and seduced us when we were sixteen.
Personally, I wouldn't have complained if a female teacher had shown that kind of interest. Of course, if I were a parent I would imagine that there is a great degree of anxiety over trust being broken and that is understandable. But, I wonder if the student involved will ever come to feel as though he was taken advantage of, or if he will remember the whole experience with fondness? Maybe that's a dumb question.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't.....
The Chinaman's Chance.
Via Angry Asian Man, this very interesting article in the Atlantic on a study that provides evidence of anti-Asian discrimination in the workplace. According to the article....
But this is not all. Here's the full study which reveals some very interesting findings. According to the study.......
The short response to this is that it is all pretty fucked up, and in a number of ways. In summary, Asians who behave in ways incongruent with the irrational and racist stereotypes (meek and distant) created by American culture are liked less than those whose behaviour adheres to these stereotypes. Subsequently, Asians who exhibit leadership qualities or who otherwise behave in unstereotypical ways become targets of racial harassment from their white co-workers. Furthermore, Asians are more likely to be subject to racial harassment in the workplace than other groups. Most insidious of all is the finding that Asians whose behaviour contradicts the stereotype of Asians being distant and cold (by being warm), are actually liked less than Asians who are perceived to be cold and distant.
Hence, the title of this post. The phrase "the Chinaman's Chance" is believed to have been coined during the start of the Golden Era (which perhaps continues to this day) of anti-Asian prejudice and hatred in the mid-nineteenth century. In short, it expresses the idea of having absolutely zero chance. This study strongly suggests that the sentiments embodied in the phrase "the Chinaman's Chance" are going strong in American society and affect the experience of Asian-Americans in the 21st century. American society promotes hostility towards Asians for being meek, cold and distant, but also expresses hostility when Asians are warm, and exhibit leadership qualities.
America's stereotypes of Asians serve the purpose of creating a cultural filter that provides a framework or template that guides the behaviour of mainstream America towards its Asian minority. Because these stereotypes are demeaning, dehumanizing, and xenophobic, they promote hostility and distrust of Asian people and normalize racial baiting and harassment - it is considered perfectly normal for America's media and its personalities to promote racial harassment of Asians through casual but pervasive mockery.
Thus, stereotypical qualities like submissiveness, and emotional coldness serve to allow mainstream America to feel justified in its anti-Asian hostility - if you deny a deserved promotion to an Asian worker it's not because you don't like Asians but because (true to stereotype) they lack leadership qualities, or if you express racially inflected dislike of your Asian co-worker it's not racism because (true to stereotype) they are just cold and distant. The latter is even a justification for racial baiting because you are not actually being racist after all - your cold and distant Asian co-worker just needs to lighten up! Thus, casual anti-Asian racism has a socially legitimate and normalized avenue of expression.
This study adds another layer to this casual anti-Asian prejudice in that overcoming stereotypes is less about overcoming ignorance - if it was about ignorance then people wouldn't have a problem with Asians with warm personalities - and is more about overcoming the apparently overwhelming desire of American society (and the individuals who comprise it) to maintain their anti-Asian hostility. They just don't want to let go of their anti-Asian racism. Why else would the normally strongly desired qualities of human warmth and strong personality cause white Americans to increase the expression of their hostility towards Asian people?
I think that many Asian-Americans would like to believe that stereotypes are the product of ignorance and not malice because this is, quite simply, easier to take than accepting the reality that anti-Asianism is a cynically nurtured attitude that is profoundly embedded in the worldview of America. Just like any belief, when Asian stereotypes are challenged by observeable reality, its adherents become enraged and attempt to re-assert the worldview that they have become comfortable with and which, perhaps, reinforces their own view of themselves relative to the reality facing them.
Similarly, it might be the case that some Asians are also too comfortable with the idea that America's cultural anti-Asianism doesn't exist as a malicious endeavour propagated with careful deliberation and intent. After all, addressing attitudes that are propagated with malicious intent is far more difficult and oppositional than simply dismissing them as ignorant. And as reflected in some of Asian-America's most mainstreamed cultural output it is easier if you characterize the Asian experience as the fundamental failure of Asians to adapt, or the backwardness of Asian cultures and not so much the result of hostility with intent. Of course, this may help to partially explain the aversion (uncovered in the study) that Asians themselves seem to hold towards Asian leaders.
Of course, none of this means that Asian-Americans have an insurmountable task in overcoming prejudice - it simply offers us an insight into the potential (or probable) obstacles we might face as we, no doubt will, assume more positions of leadership in society. Understanding the nature of a problem is a primary step in learning how to overcome it. If we continue to pretend that anti-Asian prejudice is the result of ignorance, and not malicious intent, then we will continue to miss the opportunity to confront it effectively as individuals, communities, and as an autonomous culture.
Via Angry Asian Man, this very interesting article in the Atlantic on a study that provides evidence of anti-Asian discrimination in the workplace. According to the article....
The dominant East Asian employee was more disliked than the non-dominant East Asian employee, the non-dominant White employee, and the dominant White employee. A separate trial showed that participants held descriptive stereotypes of East Asians as being competent, cold, and non-dominant, while another showed that the most valued expectation of East Asians was that they "stay in their place."This really doesn't surprise me. As any Asian man like myself who has been in a position of authority over non-Asian people, assuming a supervisory role often brings out the anti-Asian racism in co-workers.
But this is not all. Here's the full study which reveals some very interesting findings. According to the study.......
.....the stereotype of East Asians as less dominant than Whites is prescriptive in addition to being descriptive: It was considered significantly less desirable for East Asians than for Whites to be dominant......... The discrepancy between the characteristics East Asians are perceived to have (more competence and less warmth than Whites) and the characteristics considered desirable for East Asians to have (similar competence and warmth to Whites) lends support to our idea that a prescription for East Asians to be relatively nondominant helps to mitigate the social and economic threats posed by descriptive stereotypes of East Asians.......
......The dominant East Asian employee was relatively disliked as a coworker compared to the non-dominant East Asian employee, the non-dominant White employee, and the dominant White employee.
Even in this majority Asian sample, people preferred a White coworker over an Asian coworker if that coworker had a dominant personality......
These results suggest that dominant East Asians are unwelcome and unwanted by their coworkers. Employees who are unwelcome and unwanted are at greater risk of being mistreated and harassed in their work environments.......
Prior research has shown that employees who violate prescriptive gender stereotypes are more likely to be sexually harassed, consistent with the idea that disparate treatment is triggered by the violation of prescriptive stereotypes. We propose that the same dynamic is likely to occur for violations of prescriptive racial stereotypes, so that employees who violate these stereotypes are more likely to be racially harassed at work......
East Asians reported experiencing more racial harassment at work than other employees, highlighting the importance of studying discrimination against East Asians in the workplace despite the portrayal of East Asians as a “model minority” that escapes discriminatory treatment. Importantly, East Asians who violated racial stereotypes were the ones targeted for racial harassment; East Asians who “stayed in their place” did not experience more racial harassment than other employees........
As predicted, East Asians who were dominant, and thereby violated a descriptive and a prescriptive racial stereotype, were subjected to more racial harassment than other employees. East Asians who were warm, and thereby violated the descriptive stereotype of being cold, were also subjected to more harassment.
The short response to this is that it is all pretty fucked up, and in a number of ways. In summary, Asians who behave in ways incongruent with the irrational and racist stereotypes (meek and distant) created by American culture are liked less than those whose behaviour adheres to these stereotypes. Subsequently, Asians who exhibit leadership qualities or who otherwise behave in unstereotypical ways become targets of racial harassment from their white co-workers. Furthermore, Asians are more likely to be subject to racial harassment in the workplace than other groups. Most insidious of all is the finding that Asians whose behaviour contradicts the stereotype of Asians being distant and cold (by being warm), are actually liked less than Asians who are perceived to be cold and distant.
Hence, the title of this post. The phrase "the Chinaman's Chance" is believed to have been coined during the start of the Golden Era (which perhaps continues to this day) of anti-Asian prejudice and hatred in the mid-nineteenth century. In short, it expresses the idea of having absolutely zero chance. This study strongly suggests that the sentiments embodied in the phrase "the Chinaman's Chance" are going strong in American society and affect the experience of Asian-Americans in the 21st century. American society promotes hostility towards Asians for being meek, cold and distant, but also expresses hostility when Asians are warm, and exhibit leadership qualities.
America's stereotypes of Asians serve the purpose of creating a cultural filter that provides a framework or template that guides the behaviour of mainstream America towards its Asian minority. Because these stereotypes are demeaning, dehumanizing, and xenophobic, they promote hostility and distrust of Asian people and normalize racial baiting and harassment - it is considered perfectly normal for America's media and its personalities to promote racial harassment of Asians through casual but pervasive mockery.
Thus, stereotypical qualities like submissiveness, and emotional coldness serve to allow mainstream America to feel justified in its anti-Asian hostility - if you deny a deserved promotion to an Asian worker it's not because you don't like Asians but because (true to stereotype) they lack leadership qualities, or if you express racially inflected dislike of your Asian co-worker it's not racism because (true to stereotype) they are just cold and distant. The latter is even a justification for racial baiting because you are not actually being racist after all - your cold and distant Asian co-worker just needs to lighten up! Thus, casual anti-Asian racism has a socially legitimate and normalized avenue of expression.
This study adds another layer to this casual anti-Asian prejudice in that overcoming stereotypes is less about overcoming ignorance - if it was about ignorance then people wouldn't have a problem with Asians with warm personalities - and is more about overcoming the apparently overwhelming desire of American society (and the individuals who comprise it) to maintain their anti-Asian hostility. They just don't want to let go of their anti-Asian racism. Why else would the normally strongly desired qualities of human warmth and strong personality cause white Americans to increase the expression of their hostility towards Asian people?
I think that many Asian-Americans would like to believe that stereotypes are the product of ignorance and not malice because this is, quite simply, easier to take than accepting the reality that anti-Asianism is a cynically nurtured attitude that is profoundly embedded in the worldview of America. Just like any belief, when Asian stereotypes are challenged by observeable reality, its adherents become enraged and attempt to re-assert the worldview that they have become comfortable with and which, perhaps, reinforces their own view of themselves relative to the reality facing them.
Similarly, it might be the case that some Asians are also too comfortable with the idea that America's cultural anti-Asianism doesn't exist as a malicious endeavour propagated with careful deliberation and intent. After all, addressing attitudes that are propagated with malicious intent is far more difficult and oppositional than simply dismissing them as ignorant. And as reflected in some of Asian-America's most mainstreamed cultural output it is easier if you characterize the Asian experience as the fundamental failure of Asians to adapt, or the backwardness of Asian cultures and not so much the result of hostility with intent. Of course, this may help to partially explain the aversion (uncovered in the study) that Asians themselves seem to hold towards Asian leaders.
Of course, none of this means that Asian-Americans have an insurmountable task in overcoming prejudice - it simply offers us an insight into the potential (or probable) obstacles we might face as we, no doubt will, assume more positions of leadership in society. Understanding the nature of a problem is a primary step in learning how to overcome it. If we continue to pretend that anti-Asian prejudice is the result of ignorance, and not malicious intent, then we will continue to miss the opportunity to confront it effectively as individuals, communities, and as an autonomous culture.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
OUCH!!
"What Did You Call Me?"
This is not Asian specific but it's hilarious. The video is from a Turkish soccer match and the backstory is that in the two teams previous meeting the Turkish player in the yellow and blue shirt, had used a racial slur against the black player. In the following video you will see the black player's response in their next meeting. Enjoy..........
MLK he isn't but he is definitely concise. LOL!
This is not Asian specific but it's hilarious. The video is from a Turkish soccer match and the backstory is that in the two teams previous meeting the Turkish player in the yellow and blue shirt, had used a racial slur against the black player. In the following video you will see the black player's response in their next meeting. Enjoy..........
MLK he isn't but he is definitely concise. LOL!
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
A Perfect Crime.......
The L.A Riots.
It's hard to believe that twenty years have passed since the Los Angeles riots erupted into the most violent urban disturbance in recent history. Although the US has seen many riots in its cities over the years, the LA riots were somewhat unique because the racial antagonism went beyond the traditional white/black hostility and brought to light racist attitudes between ethnic minorities.
Of course, although it was the acquittal of the policemen who participated in the beating of Rodney King that sparked the rampage, in the ensuing days it was the tension and hostility between the African-American and immigrant Korean community that became the focus of the media's commentary and attention. During the unrest, Korean businesses were targeted by the mob who first looted and then set fire to them.
Naturally, the disturbance was turned into a major television event by a media who, with a good degree of cynicism, chose to spin the riot like an old-time movie in which the various parties involved were characterized as good-guys and victims (the rioters), bad-guys (the Koreans), and the well-meaning but helpless (the police). Its fair to say that fair and unbiased reporting seemed to go out the window - particularly in their coverage of the reaction of some Korean shop-owners.
As you may discern from this report from 1992 - which to me is a good example of the uncompromising and reproachful character of the media's attitude towards the Koreans - the fact that these shop-keepers were defending themselves and their property elicited much sickening condemnation from many self-righteous observers whose own lives and livelihoods were not under threat, but who seemed to insist on a saintly martyr approach to racially motivated mob violence by those who were targeted.
What is most striking to me is how, both then and now, the racist targeting of the Koreans by the mob has been either ignored, denied, or justified as an understandable act by a frustrated minority. Even coverage of the riots in Europe, where I was living at the time, sought to villify the Korean immigrants and characterize the violence being committed against them as somehow deserved.
Of course, in truth, the 1992 riots came at a time when anti-Asian hostility in America was particularly prevalent. The 1970's and 80's had seen some of the most overt and blatant anti-Asian rhetoric in politics and mainstream American culture. The 1970's and 80's had been a time of anxiety for the American economy because of stiff competition in the manufacturing sector from several East Asian countries. Resentment caused by the perception that these Asian competitors were taking American jobs was compounded by xenophobic attitudes that these nations were being diabolically underhanded or unfair in the way that they were developing their economies.
Consequently, American attitudes at the time reflected this hostility. The period was was full of anti-Asian political rhetoric, calls for boycotts, and retaliatory measures (often martial in nature) against Asians supposedly "cheating" their way to economic power. Culturally, the Asian bad guy became a staple for movies throughout the era and a general hostility towards Asian people was pervasive (in fact this is largely still true). This was the backdrop to the racist murder of Vincent Chin in 1982. Chin was bludgeoned to death by two very angry and unemployed white men, because they apparently blamed their unemployment on Asians and wanted to vent their anger through violent murder.
In a strange way, the targeting of Korean immigrants during the LA riots is fundamentally a crime of similar character as the murder of Chin, the only difference being that the Koreans were able to defend themselves more effectively - if this had not been the case my guess is that dozens of Koreans would have been killed. In both cases, widespread cultural xenophobia and hostility towards Asians that had been nurtured in the media, society, and politically, served to normalize the resentment and irrational anger that drove the mob violence. In the aftermath, the anti-Asian racism that made violent anger inevitable also served as a justification for the violence - after all, the Asians are sneakily taking jobs and money out of American communities.
And this is how it was possible to commit the perfect crime. Fully televised, and in full view of the entire world, a racially motivated pogrom that would have made the Nazis proud was carried out against a Korean immigrant community with the full perverse approval of the watching media and a resentful society seemingly rabid about the prospect of hitting Asians where it hurts. In some ways, in the pogrom of 1992, Korean immigrants became the focus for the simmering rage of an economically affronted America. Thus, the hate crime committed against Korean immigrants - and the general anti-Asian racism that enabled it - was marginalized from the story. Instead of becoming a means to highlight pervasive anti-Asian prejudice, the riots highlighted America's tolerance and full acceptance of it and made certain that this aspect of the story would not become part of the accepted history.
Like a perfect crime in an Agatha Christie novel in which a crime of murder becomes hidden within a crime of theft, the story of racist victimization of Korean immigrants was buried (and remains largely buried) and given lesser significance than the stories of the mob who committed it. America's anti-Asian racism ensures that empathy towards their experience will be rejected and their desperate (and brave) acts of self-defence - made necessary by police indifference - will continue to be irrationally and self-righteously condemned.
There were two perpetrators in the pogrom against Korean immigrants - the mob but also (and perhaps even more significantly) the general cultural racism that first enabled it, then provided the means to justify and downplay the racist crime that it was, and finally re-wrote history to exclude this aspect of the story from the accepted accounts.
It's hard to believe that twenty years have passed since the Los Angeles riots erupted into the most violent urban disturbance in recent history. Although the US has seen many riots in its cities over the years, the LA riots were somewhat unique because the racial antagonism went beyond the traditional white/black hostility and brought to light racist attitudes between ethnic minorities.
Of course, although it was the acquittal of the policemen who participated in the beating of Rodney King that sparked the rampage, in the ensuing days it was the tension and hostility between the African-American and immigrant Korean community that became the focus of the media's commentary and attention. During the unrest, Korean businesses were targeted by the mob who first looted and then set fire to them.
Naturally, the disturbance was turned into a major television event by a media who, with a good degree of cynicism, chose to spin the riot like an old-time movie in which the various parties involved were characterized as good-guys and victims (the rioters), bad-guys (the Koreans), and the well-meaning but helpless (the police). Its fair to say that fair and unbiased reporting seemed to go out the window - particularly in their coverage of the reaction of some Korean shop-owners.
As you may discern from this report from 1992 - which to me is a good example of the uncompromising and reproachful character of the media's attitude towards the Koreans - the fact that these shop-keepers were defending themselves and their property elicited much sickening condemnation from many self-righteous observers whose own lives and livelihoods were not under threat, but who seemed to insist on a saintly martyr approach to racially motivated mob violence by those who were targeted.
What is most striking to me is how, both then and now, the racist targeting of the Koreans by the mob has been either ignored, denied, or justified as an understandable act by a frustrated minority. Even coverage of the riots in Europe, where I was living at the time, sought to villify the Korean immigrants and characterize the violence being committed against them as somehow deserved.
Of course, in truth, the 1992 riots came at a time when anti-Asian hostility in America was particularly prevalent. The 1970's and 80's had seen some of the most overt and blatant anti-Asian rhetoric in politics and mainstream American culture. The 1970's and 80's had been a time of anxiety for the American economy because of stiff competition in the manufacturing sector from several East Asian countries. Resentment caused by the perception that these Asian competitors were taking American jobs was compounded by xenophobic attitudes that these nations were being diabolically underhanded or unfair in the way that they were developing their economies.
Consequently, American attitudes at the time reflected this hostility. The period was was full of anti-Asian political rhetoric, calls for boycotts, and retaliatory measures (often martial in nature) against Asians supposedly "cheating" their way to economic power. Culturally, the Asian bad guy became a staple for movies throughout the era and a general hostility towards Asian people was pervasive (in fact this is largely still true). This was the backdrop to the racist murder of Vincent Chin in 1982. Chin was bludgeoned to death by two very angry and unemployed white men, because they apparently blamed their unemployment on Asians and wanted to vent their anger through violent murder.
In a strange way, the targeting of Korean immigrants during the LA riots is fundamentally a crime of similar character as the murder of Chin, the only difference being that the Koreans were able to defend themselves more effectively - if this had not been the case my guess is that dozens of Koreans would have been killed. In both cases, widespread cultural xenophobia and hostility towards Asians that had been nurtured in the media, society, and politically, served to normalize the resentment and irrational anger that drove the mob violence. In the aftermath, the anti-Asian racism that made violent anger inevitable also served as a justification for the violence - after all, the Asians are sneakily taking jobs and money out of American communities.
And this is how it was possible to commit the perfect crime. Fully televised, and in full view of the entire world, a racially motivated pogrom that would have made the Nazis proud was carried out against a Korean immigrant community with the full perverse approval of the watching media and a resentful society seemingly rabid about the prospect of hitting Asians where it hurts. In some ways, in the pogrom of 1992, Korean immigrants became the focus for the simmering rage of an economically affronted America. Thus, the hate crime committed against Korean immigrants - and the general anti-Asian racism that enabled it - was marginalized from the story. Instead of becoming a means to highlight pervasive anti-Asian prejudice, the riots highlighted America's tolerance and full acceptance of it and made certain that this aspect of the story would not become part of the accepted history.
Like a perfect crime in an Agatha Christie novel in which a crime of murder becomes hidden within a crime of theft, the story of racist victimization of Korean immigrants was buried (and remains largely buried) and given lesser significance than the stories of the mob who committed it. America's anti-Asian racism ensures that empathy towards their experience will be rejected and their desperate (and brave) acts of self-defence - made necessary by police indifference - will continue to be irrationally and self-righteously condemned.
There were two perpetrators in the pogrom against Korean immigrants - the mob but also (and perhaps even more significantly) the general cultural racism that first enabled it, then provided the means to justify and downplay the racist crime that it was, and finally re-wrote history to exclude this aspect of the story from the accepted accounts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)