Donald Sterling And Racism In America....

.....And Why Asians Have Nothing To Answer For.

There is an article in Slate that has been making the rounds written by a couple of Asian-Americans on the recent furore over Clippers' owner Donald Sterling's racist remarks about African-Americans. The piece parses the bigger picture of Sterling's racist attitudes and does a good job of contextualizing his supposed "love" of Koreans as merely another way of expressing a racialized and racist way of thinking.

As one might expect, the article goes to great pains to highlight the idea of the Model Minority myth as a cause of this way of thinking, noting that racism is not always - in fact is never - only about hatred, but can be expressed even as one expresses love and admiration.

While it’s not quite on par with degrading other minorities as lazy or filthy, Sterling’s praise for his hardworking Korean tenants and the “Asian way” reveals how racism can be a collection of contradictory impulses. Love and hate, praise and condescension—they are all engines of exploitation.

Oddly enough, this notion of racism being expressed through love is not new, and was most eloquently described by none other than Frank Chin - the largely marginalized and under-appreciated Chinese-American writer - whose brutal directness and unwillingness to compromise on historical and cultural truths has made him an anathema to the far more prominent historical revisionists within Asian-America. Personally, I like the guy. Way back in 1972, Chin wrote a piece called "Racist Love" that encapsulates with great eloquence and directness this idea that racism does not necessarily thrive on hatred alone, but is just as equally upheld by "love". Read it and weep.

Of course, the Slate piece should be read as a refutation of the idea that the "model minority" is a positive thing, and in that regard I wholeheartedly agree. What I find problematic about the piece - and about Asian-American commentary on the model minority stereotype as a whole - is that we always fail to point out the most uncomfortable truth about it. When Asian-Americans talk about the model minority the usual trope is that the stereotype upholds the idea that racism can be overcome through hard work as proven by Asian "success", whilst simultaneously faulting other minorities - black and Hispanic - for not doing the same. The story goes that since Asians - supposedly - don't complain about racism and just put their heads down and "get on with it" that this is a good model of behaviour for all minorities to follow - hence Asians are the "model minority". In other words, the stereotype implicitly and explicitly justifies racist attitudes towards blacks and Hispanics by blaming them and not racism for their inability to succeed.

The typical Asian response - naturally, perhaps - is to decry the stereotype for its racist love and for its detrimental effects on other minorities, criticize Asians who "embrace" the stereotype, and most significantly of all, to criticize Asians who might embrace the stereotype or simply fail to speak out against it. The reasoning goes that Asians who embrace or are silent about the stereotype are implicitly upholding white racism and in return are given "privileged" status or simply given just "privilege". I have written about this notion of Asian model minority privilege elsewhere, but the story goes that by participating in white supremacy - that is, by accepting privileges (often unspecified by critics) that enable Asians to "prosper" - and not challenging the structures that uphold it (presumably by quitting college or jobs, perhaps?), Asians are being complicit in anti-black/anti-Hispanic white supremacist racism. As the article notes....

The housing case brought against Sterling in 2003 includes black, Latino, and white plaintiffs but no Korean-Americans. We have not been able to find prominent public complaints against Sterling by any Asian-American individuals or groups. There are also troubling stories of Sterling at one point replacing his security team with “Korean-born guards who were hostile to non-Koreans.”

Although there is no explicit criticism of Asian-Americans in the piece for not speaking out against Sterling's long list of racially demeaning statements and activities, pointing out that Asians have not made any substantial complaints about him is, to me, an implicit observation on supposed Asian "passivity" when it comes to speaking out about racism directed at both Asians and non-Asians alike. As other prominent bloggers have suggested, because Asian privilege is - supposedly - unique in that we are afforded opportunities to prosper not given to other minorities, then we are uniquely required to be more vocal about racism.

This way of thinking leaves us with a substantial elephant in the room. As I pointed out in  my other model minority post, if it is true that to succeed requires complicity with white supremacy, then it must also be true that for any minority to succeed, they have to also be complicit with white supremacy and, in fact, many non-Asian minorities do succeed. In fact the Sterling case is an awkward illustration of this notion in action. Although Sterling has a long history of expressing racist opinions and enacting racist policies in his work, and although lawsuits have been brought against him by aggrieved parties, the fact is that for at least the two plus decades that Sterling has been expressing racially charged opinions and discriminating against blacks and Hispanics, there has been - as far as I know - almost no complaints or activism from black or Hispanic employees within his Clippers organization about his prejudices.

That is, aside from the most recent on-court, pre-game, "protest" by Clippers players against Sterling's most recent transgression, the black players, coaches, and whatever black support staff he employs, have been largely silent in challenging Sterling's prejudices which have been out in the open for years. In other words, they have been guilty of "model minority" behaviour - accepting the status quo in exchange for "privileges" and the opportunity to prosper. I am not criticizing the apparent passivity of black employees of the Clippers organization here, but merely pointing out that speaking out against structural racism is far more complex and difficult to do than merely following a set of college-learned ideals and imposing that set of ideals on real people in the real world (with families to support and children to feed) and finding imperfection in those people because they have to make real-world choices.

Clearly, Asians are not alone when it comes to keeping quiet and keeping their heads down instead of confronting racism head-on, the only difference is that  whereas blacks and Hispanics have a strong cultural and social voice, Asians have a weak cultural, social, and political, presence and it is, thus, easy to label us and make it stick. As I have shown, no-one is faulting black Clippers employees for their years of apparent silence over Sterling's racism.

But even the idea that Asians don't speak out about racism is clearly false. Blogs like my own, and even other Asian bloggers whose focus is not the racial experience include commentary and speak out about racism. Often, in the aftermath of yet another racist media slight, Asian journalists or writers will post articles in mainstream publications speaking out about racism. So why we have this idea that Asian don't speak out about racism I don't know because clearly, we do. But this perception itself illustrates just how excluded Asians are from the processes by which perceptions of us are formed. Despite the fact that Asians regularly speak out about racism, the wider perception is that we don't, which is probably because the images and statements that are  given the most gravity are made or created by non-Asians, often relying on formulaic and derogatory conceptions of Asian people, and who have the full power of the media apparatus at their disposal. All of this means that to buy  into the idea that Asians don't speak out about racism is to in some ways hold Asians responsible for their own exclusion and invisibility in mainstream culture. Even worse, to suggest that Asians are uniquely and specifically more disinclined to challenge racism's structures is merely more stereotyping.

Asians have very little to no control over America's race dialogue on Asians - this is a simple fact. That is why it is important that we refrain from an intra-community dialogue that over-simplifies our race experience and our responses to it. As the Sterling case has shown, any and all minorities once integrated economically into the system will overlook racial indignities and transgressions committed by the white power structures - Asians are not alone in that.

But the ultimate beneficiaries of this racial typecasting are the people who invoke the model as a bludgeon against others. Sterling’s admiration for his Korean tenants is actually a kind of scorn. After all, he still subjected Korean tenants to the same degrading treatment as everyone else—the only difference is that the Koreans seemed willing to take it.

That final sentence seems to be trying too hard and does not specify how Sterling's behaviour was degrading to Koreans, but it illustrates my points clearly. Nothing I have read anywhere says that Sterling degraded the Koreans, just like black players and staff at the Clipper's organization were not personally degraded (as far as I know) by him. Perhaps if there had been incidences of personal degradation the Koreans might have reacted, just like the black employees at the Clipper's organization might have reacted if they had experienced personal degradation - they certainly did not seem motivated to to speak out or protest on behalf of the victims of housing discriminatioın in Sterling's rental properties. The point is, that all minorities act the same when they become economically integrated, suggesting that expecting such economically integrated people to approach anti-racist activism like Malcolm X might not yield the desired results, or even be the desired approach.

The real damage here, though, is to suggest that there is something uniquely Asian about not speaking up against discrimination when they are not directly, or personally, affected by it. Clearly, all minorities who have achieved some degree of economic integration for one reason of another will not challenge discrimination unless they are personally affected by it - the Clipper's employees illustrate this. By implying that this is a uniquely Asian phenomenon is simply incorrect and only serves to deflect the dialogue away from any meaningful attempt to find a course of action that empowers minorities - not just the Asian ones - to embrace their economic success or integration, whilst challenging discrimination from within.

Pointing the finger at Asians only allows the very significant fact to go unnoticed that almost no minority groups who stand to lose what little piece of economic advantage they have attained will rarely jeopardize it to stand up for ati-racist ideals. This notion is too simplistic on top of being wrong - much like the kind of stereotyping we are targeted with - and in order to improve the Asian-American cultural, social and political footprint we need to offer dialogue about ourselves that is primarily accurate, and nuanced.

Asian-American Reactivism

Engineering Our Own Demise.

Anyone who has been around kids would probably agree that you can tell a child anything, but unless you actually model the behaviour that you insist upon in the child, then they will just begin to think that you are just a hypocritical adult bullshitter. "Do what I say, not what I do" does not get you very far. But this principle holds true in all human interactions - if  you go through life not practicing what you preach then, soon, you will lose credibility. You have to practice what you preach as individuals but it is also especially pertinently significant for a racialized group, like Asian-Americans.

A couple of events that have taken place in recent weeks have left me wondering if Asian-America can be criticized for not walking its talk, and failing to provide an appropriate model of behaviour of a kind that we insist mainstream America follow. We want our dignity to be respected, we want to be seen as individuals and we want (at least I know I want) reason and nuance to guide attitudes towards us. Yet, I think that all too often in our intra-Asian dialogue we seem reluctant, unable, or simply fail, to model this very thing.

I came across an extremely well-written and witty article, written by Arthur Chu - of Jeopardy fame - in which he very cleverly gave his thoughts on the "#CancelColbert" movement and its initiator, Suey Park. Viewing Park as a necessary and welcome evil, he writes the following....

I’m glad that we’re increasingly living in a world where nice people can be nice people and jerks can be jerks and game show villains can be game show villains without the need to be a “credit to your race.” That, slowly, haltingly, through a lot of debating and arguing and fighting and hashing tough shit out, we’re finding the freedom to just be ourselves.

Sounds good, except that earlier in the piece Chu wrote the following...

Suey Park is crazy. She does not represent us. She does not speak for us. She doesn’t speak for anyone except her fellow denizens of Angrytweets, USA, a community whose sole import is random entertainment news and whose sole export is intoxicating outrage.........I’m glad she’s out there. Because Asians need more villains.

What I find difficult to reconcile here is this idea that somehow being angry makes Park into a villain. Even worse, Park is crazy because she is angry. What seems to be happening here is that Chu is celebrating some kind of eccentricity that is not usually associated with Asians - which is true - but instead of letting Park's actions and behaviours speak for themselves - as he seems to want - , he actually seems to want to shape perceptions of her, so that it does not reflect back on him. He accomplishes this by stereotyping her as villainous and crazy.

Although I am critical of white celebs contextualizing America's race dialogue by getting it completely wrong, I have not agreed with the manner of Park's activism but she is not crazy for being wrong, and she certainly is not a villain for taking the wrong approach. The problem here is that Park is a living breathing human being who - by my reckoning - made and makes mistakes and I am simply uncomfortable with her being labeled because of it. Doing so does not sound like being genuinely open to a diverse, warts an' all conception of Asians because part of that process of acceptance of our warts is to leave open the possibility and hope that as individuals who make individual choices, some wrong, some not, we have the capacity to change. After all, isn't racism predicated on the idea of immutable, often negative, racial characteristics?

But there is a more profound issue here that I find troubling - even in cases where minority anger is justified, America still manages to stereotype it and mock it. We have stereotypes about the Angry Asian  Man (and now, perhaps woman), and we have stereotypes about black anger, and we laugh at them, and in the process diminish any legitimate concerns that  sparked the anger. Yet, white anger is taken seriously and given weight, and in no way is implied to reflect on any one other than the person expressing it, and rarely, if ever is white anger mocked via stereotype.

Of course, the cherry topping is the caveat that Park "does not represent us" and "she does not speak for us". Shouldn't it go without saying that it is reasonable to presume that Park's opinions represent little more than her own thinking? Why would Chu have to even say such a thing...unless...unless...there is some kind of process by which Asians are held to accountability as a group for the actions or behaviour of one of them? Maybe Park isn't so crazy after all.

But this tendency to pile in and beat each other down - even when we think we are doing the opposite - took an even more sinister and disturbing turn more recently when Korean-American artist, David Choe, told a story on his internet broadcast show that left many listeners believing that he had committed rape. Basically, the story goes like this; Choe claimed that in a "high-class spa" - that is a legitimate non-sex oriented spa - he pushed his female massage therapist's head onto his penis to make her perform fellatio, after which she proclaimed her previously unspoken sexual attraction for Choe, and requests his telephone number so that she can, you know, make it happen again - nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Of course, Choe is not interested, and gives her a false number.....uh-huh. That sounds believable.

My first reaction when I heard Choe telling the story was that he sounded like a fifteen-year-old boy, boasting to his friends about sexual encounters that never happened except in his own fantasies, or as an embellishment of a story he read in his dad's Playboy mags. Nothing about the story rings true, nothing about it made me think that I should take it seriously as a reflection of an actual incident, and even the manner of the telling came across like Choe was improvising the whole thing - badly - such that all I could think was "it did not happen".

But in the aftermath of the broadcast a furore erupted with accusations being made that Choe had actually committed rape and was effectively admitting to doing so. In the wake of this wave of repugnance for Choe, a petition was created - here - requesting that the White House remove Choe's paintings from its walls because.....

On 10 March 2014, David Choe aired an episode of a podcast called "DVDASA" describing a sexual exploit at a high-end massage parlor. Choe commented how the massage therapist, "Rose", did not want to be physically touched, responded "no" to his requests, and ultimately resulted in him physically pushing down her head onto his erect penis............While Choe has since recanted his remarks, stating he had made up the story, his commentary still has a significant impact due to his fame and perpetuates the myth that there is a rape spectrum, that no doesn't mean no, and rape is not always rape, but merely "rapey".......Choe may not be a rapist, but his painting of our President Obama does not deserve to represent his community at the White House.
Choe may not be a rapist, but his painting of our President Obama does not deserve to represent his community at the White House.

A previous version - the above has been updated, I believe - called on the White House to issue a statement on its stance regarding "alleged rape" (incidentally, what are the ethical considerations when one asks people to sign a petition and then one changes the wording of the petition after it has been signed?). Whilst I can certainly understand the negative reactions to Choe's comments and decry his gross insensitivity on a subject that is painful and very real for women, the fact is that he has not actually been proven to have committed or even charged with a crime.

In a court of law, the concept of reasonable doubt serves as a guiding principle for how we judge the accused - we apply reason, logic, and rational arguments to evidence and subsequently judge impartially. Furthermore, reasonable doubt also safeguards against abuses of judicial power by ensuring that evidence itself is not arbitrary (I feel, without evidence, that someone is guilty, is not reasonable evidence, for example), or that charges do not serve a political agenda. So, reasonable doubt is a hugely important aspect of guaranteeing our rights and protecting them from abuse.

With that in mind, it is disturbing that anyone would participate in a petition try to leap-frog the judicial process by calling on the Executive Branch of our government to basically treat Choe as though he were already convicted of a crime, and do damage to his reputation and possibly his livelihood by removing his work from the White House. In other words, the Executive is being asked to mete out punishment to Choe, effectively in lieu of his right to due process, and all based on a dubious story (subsequently retracted), and (somewhat) popular outrage.

Asian-Americans, of all people, should be painfully aware of the dangers of populist outrage, and popular sentiment in relation to the denial of due process, and I would not be surprised if many of the Asians who signed the petition would - with a completely straight face - decry Japanese internment and their denial of due process during World War 2. They too were punished without ever being convicted of any crimes, and it was done via an Executive order and with popular consent. We cannot have it both ways.

Sure, people are free to choose to boycott Choe, but to demand that the White House play a part in punishing or censuring someone who has not even been convicted of, or even legally charged with, any crime, does a greater disservice to Asian-Americans than Choe's stupidity. The petition states that Choe "does not deserve (emphasis mine) to represent his community", which carries with it an implicit call for the White House to make what amounts to a moral judgement - to be accompanied by a "punishment" - on a civil society matter, thus expanding the scope of the Executive role to include moral proclamation. It is a staggering irony that people who casually demand that an individual's right to due process be infringed upon by an Executive that also issues moral judgements, could somehow believe themselves to be the arbiters of what, or who, could be a deserving representative of our community.

No, these folks are far, far, far, worse, and Asian-America should distance itself from any hint of vindictive action that unapologetically seeks to punish someone who has not even been charged with a crime, and who seek to muddy democratic principles because someone said something upsetting. And this is what is so disappointing; by participating as Asian bloggers, writers, or signatories of a petition, in any activity that supports steamrollering someone's democratic rights, then we have effectively set the standard for how we ourselves can and should be treated in the eyes of the law and society in general. That is not to say that those angered by Choe's douchebag story should merely let it go (on the contrary feel free to take action within the realm of normal civil society activity if you wish), but it does mean that we should shoulder a responsibility to insist that nuance and reason guide behaviours towards any Asian, not emotion and vindictiveness.

This is because nuance and reason are the qualities most often absent from the behaviours and actions of mainstream America towards its Asian minority. We saw this during Japanese internment, and more recently in the Wen Ho Lee case. If Asian-Americans are not prepared to approach issues relating to Asian people with nuance and reason (and modes of interaction that uphold human dignity), then how can we demand it of others? In other words, if we want to be treated with respect and have our human dignity respected (even in cases where there is potential for crime, more so in cases where a crime has only been inferred to have been committed), then in a society that makes a point of not respecting our human dignity, we must surely be obliged to provide that model of behaviour that we insist mainstream America abide by?

A Modulating Racism

Prosperity, Success, And The Permissiveness Of Racism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A-Town Boyz Movie

Asian-American Gangsters Of Atlanta.

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

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

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

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

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

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





And here is the documentary's website...

http://www.atownboyzmovie.com/

Support this movie when it comes out.

Driven Out - An Asian-American Holocaust

The Forgotten War Against Chinese-Americans.

I bought the book "Driven Out" a couple of years ago, and tried several times to read it all the way through, but had been unable to because of the very harrowing nature of the work. The book - written by a Jewish-American academic - details the almost continuous barrage of racial attacks, pogroms, and riots, over a period of at least six decades, targeting the early Chinese immigrants to the US, beginning in the mid-nineteenth-century. I've finally, in recent weeks, made the decision of finish the book and I am now almost through it, but it is still not easy reading.

The book covers a period of American history from the 1850's through to the early decades of the 20th century, that has been completely white-washed from the mainstream and Asian-American historical consciousness alike. The first Chinese immigrants began to arrive in the US in the early 19th century following the forced opening of Chinese markets to the West. As is always the case, exchanges of products were accompanied by the transfer of people and communities, so, in part because Westerners began to colonize China and create economic and social disadvantages for the Chinese, many Chinese sought economic security and opportunities in foreign countries that were no longer possible at home. Many indentured themselves - the so-called "coolies" - and found work in far-flung places like South Africa, The Caribbean, Australia, and South America. The Chinese who came to America came as free men in search of opportunities and only a small minority came as indentured servants.

Since almost the beginning of the Chinese presence in the US, they were under attack - and it has to be said that even though it was white Americans who propagated the violence, there was some participation of other minorities. There were cases where Mexicans and Native peoples participated in the violence, and even some African-Americans took sides against the Asian immigrants in editorials in black publications (but it has to be said that other African-American commentators gave support to the Chinese). But the vast majority of attacks were initiated and carried out by whites.

The stories of violence and manifestations of hatred are almost unbelieveable - they are so savage, brutal, and sadistic, that the perpetrators and the violence that they committed sounds like little more than a caricature of a medieval warlord and his mob of rampaging peasants. If one were to write a novel - or make a movie - with these kinds of incidents, most people might find the characterizations to be too far-fetched. But these things did happen, and the sadistic brutality was real, yet, the entire episode has almost disappeared from the American consciousness. Certainly, I have heard people talking about the prejudice against the early Chinese, but it has always seemed to be strangely sterile in the telling - even Asians seem to downplay the sheer savagery of the violence. Even worse, this hugely significant episode in American, and Asian-American, history has been given no place in the consciousness of Asian-American cultural output, when in my opinion, it should form the basis for the ontology of Asian-American culture.

It is impossible to document all of the attacks against the Chinese in a single blog post - there were literally hundreds of episodes that affected thousands of Chinese - such was the level and degree of violent depravity of America's pioneers in the West.

Having come to America lured by the promise of work, or riches in the gold mines, the Chinese quickly established themselves as a more reliable and cheaper alternative than white workers in many of the West coast's fledgling industries. Fairly soon, small communities of Chinese - mostly men - sprang up throughout the West Coast. Almost just as soon, anti-Chinese sentiment began to emerge. Driven by labor movements, and local authorities, but legitimized by xenophobic politicians, the anti-Chinese sentiment played upon the sense of white entitlement to whip up hatred towards the peaceful Chinese. Significantly, then as now, the media played a huge role in galvanizing and promoting anti-Chinese feeling - using stereotypes, caricatures, and a general strategy of defamation, the media succeeded in dehumanizing the Chinese such that few people saw a moral contradiction between the brotherly love of their Christian faith, and the culture of murder and disenfranchisement that they allowed to occur in their towns, and in which many were happy to participate.

Laws came into being that made it illegal for the Chinese to own property, and they were "discouraged" or forbidden from renting near whites - the so-called "Chinatowns" were actually ghettos, that served as a means of racial segregation, in run down and decrepit parts of town, and in buildings often considered too dangerous for human habitation. Special "taxes" and "fees" were introduced with the aim of specifically targeting Chinese workers and business owners. Still, the Chinese endured. They made these areas their own, and soon Chinese merchants were in operation, providing services and products for the community. But this segregation didn't satisfy the bloodlust of the West Coast's white population. Anti-Chinese sentiment, given momentum by xenophobia of politicians, and fueled by a media campaign of dehumanization, stereotyping, and defamation, soon flared up into a full-scale ethnic cleansing that would last into the 20th century.

What is unsettling is how these actions of hatred and the methods and attitudes that drove them, seem echoed in the modern-day experience of Asian-Americans. Then, as now, American society exhibited a moral acceptance of dehumanization of the Chinese - most would not act on it, but seemed to be either apathetic about the moral dilemma at best, or at worst, willing to justify or downplay prejudice. Then, as now, Asians could build communities and businesses, and the mostly apathetic mainstream would go along with it without much fanfare. Yet, most often in the 19th century American West, a handful of determined people were able to galvanize public action, such that white Americans who had lived, worked, and become friendly with their Chinese neighbours in towns all over the west coast could either turn on them, or simply look the other way while mobs of angry white men burned Chinese communities, forced Chinese people to leave town, or simply beat and murdered them.

White agitators would protest the presence of Chinese communities in their towns, galvanize the support of the local community and its authorities, made businesses and landlords sign petitions promising to never employ or rent to the Chinese, made those who already employed or rented to the Chinese - through intimidation or simple persuasion - to promise to fire or evict them. Boycotts of Chinese businesses were used as a weapon (as it is today against Asian merchants and powerful Asian economies) to financially ruin successful businessmen. Once this base of support had been solidified, then the campaign against any given Chinese community would usually become violent and brutal. Mobs of men (but sometimes including women and children) would enter Chinatowns, forcing the Chinese out of their homes and businesses, they would be beaten (or killed) and then made to walk miles to the coast or railway stations where they would be forced onto trains and ships and removed from the town. Then the homes of the Chinese would be ransacked and burned. In some instances, Chinese homes and dorms would be set on fire with the Chinese men still inside, who were then shot at and murdered as they tried to escape the flames.

Often, local authorities would serve notices to the Chinese communities informing them of the decision to have them removed from town, and in some instances the Chinese agreed to leave, yet, sometimes, violence took place even when the Chinese agreed to leave town. By providing violent racism with the veneer of legalism, America made ethnic cleansing of the Chinese a respectable and justified endeavour. With only the most flimsy of justifications, Chinatowns throughout the west coast were eradicated, ransacked and burned, and the Chinese men who populated them were beaten, killed, or falsely imprisoned. In the six or so decades between the 1850's and the early 20th century, there were hundreds of such incidences, that drove Chinese communities out of dozens of American West Coast towns, killing many Chinese men and injuring thousands more. Following the so-called "dog-tag" laws in the 1890's that required the registration of all Chinese, the idea was floated that any Chinese who could not show that they were legal should be placed in "enclosures" - a disturbing foreshadowing of Japanese internment.

Yet, the Chinese were never passive in the face of this hostility, not only did they resist, they went on the offensive. They fought back with acts of civil disobedience, strikes, boycotts, and even used lawsuits and the legal system to win recompense for their material losses. Across the region, groups of Chinese men armed themselves with rifles and pistols, and defended their homes and properties. In some towns - such as San Jose - after repeated arson attacks that destroyed Chinatown, the Chinese community rebuilt in brick and stone, and surrounded their community with a high retaining wall accessible through a single guarded entrance gate. When local thugs tried to harass the local shop-keepers, the Chinese bought lawsuits against the perpetrators. These acts of self-defence and defiance sent clear statements of intent that they would not be intimidated into leaving, and that they were asserting their rights as American residents.

Lawsuits bought by the Chinese against local and federal authorities - several of which they won - served as the legal precedent for reparations paid to the Japanese for internment and to several native American groups. A lawsuit bought against the state of Califıornia by a Chinese family is considered one of the most important civil rights decisions in American history - it forced the states to provide public education for all of its children, regardless of their race or origin. Chinese resistance also tested the 14th amendment's provision for equal protection under the law. Yet, these civil rights precedents have disappeared form the American consciousness, and even worse, it has been forgotten or ignored in the Asian-American consciousness.

The experience of the early Chinese immigrants set the tone for America's attitude towards its Asian populations ever since. Subsequent populations of Asian immigrants - almost all male - like the Japanese and Filipinos, faced a similar campaign of violence. Both these groups faced segregation, violence, lynchings, and exclusion. Mobs attacked their neighbourhoods, and campaigns to prevent them from gaining employment and places to live were often successful. And even the big "Driving Out" - Japanese internment - can be viewed as simply a manifestation on a larger scale of the policy of excluding or driving out Asian populations from American towns.

It is almost a mirror image of the manner in which the Chinese were brutalized; agitation from local people, coupled with xenophobia from federal policymakers, resulted in notices being served that the Japanese would be driven from their homes and businesses, and their property would be basically ransacked and stolen by the white population. Japanese internment, violence against the Filipinos, and the driving out of the Chinese, reflect a single line of political and racial thinking that, because it has been forgotten or whitewashed from history, presents obstacles to any meaningful understanding of the attitudes and hatreds that lie at the foundation of anti-Asian racism that still inform America's attitudes towards Asians in the present.

It is eerie to realize that American culture still maintains this culture of dehumanization towards Asian people, that normalizes racism, and creates an attitude of low-grade resentment that can be manipulated to justify racist behaviour and violence. In this way, genuine engagement with the Asian community is never required, and society can distance itself from any moral consideration of Asian humanity, when political convenience, or economic resentments, necessitate the need for demonization of Asian people.

The latest episode in this decades-old cultural practice of maintaining moral distance from Asians, saw its most recent manifestation in the LA riots of 1992. America's cultural propagation of anti-Asian resentment of the 1970's and 80's, and the normalization of demeaning behaviours and dehumanizing stereotypes, created an environment in which a pogrom against Korean merchants and their businesses was largely deemed to be morally justified by the mainstream. There was little sympathy and almost no empathy for the Koreans, and they were even castigated for defending themselves. It is difficult to sympathize and empathize with a group of people about whom  that racial mockery, and dehumanizing resentments, are the standard manner of conceiving of them.

Understanding the experiences of the first Chinese immigrants, should help us to see how the attitudes that drove anti-Chinese violence were founded on a basis of low-grade, but pervasive, derogatory stereotypes that enabled communities to distance themselves from any moral consideration towards the Chinese. Although hatred drove the violence, it was the equally important culture of dehumanization that made possible the apathy, acquiescence and assistance of the majority. This culture of dehumanization of Asians is still going strong to this day, and the experiences of the Chinese shows me that even if you are an established community, this dehumanization leaves open the possibility for the kind moral distancing that makes violence inevitable.

I do  not think that it is coincidental that this early history of struggle by Asian immigrants has largely disappeared from the cultural consciousness of both Asian-Americans because these histories involved mainly Asian men, and in modern day America, it is the feminine voice that is the acceptable voice of Asian-America. As we all might agree, the feminine voice of Asian-America, generally defers to the importance the white male presence in Asian existence, whereas the facts of history of Asian-America implicitly marginalizes the white male as a vindictive, frightened, and violent savage, who attempted to murder, or persuade others to murder, his way to ethnic purity, and economic hegemony. This leaves no room for a history that not only shows that America engaged in ethnic cleansing against Asians, it also leaves no room for the preferred narrative in which Asian men are not the weak timid creatures who are easily pushed around. The early Chinese fought back in any way they could think of. That is probably why mainstream America prefers to forget, and Asian-Americans who strive for mainstream inclusion at all costs, generally acquiesce to pretending this history never happened.

Where Are You From?

An Asian-American Anthology.

Last year I received an e-mail from Byron Wong - owner of the bigWOWO blog - who offered me the opportunity to take part in an anthology that his activist (Thymos) group was putting together. The idea was to gather together Asian-Americans from different walks of life, with different perspectives, and ideas, and to allow them to "let loose", if you will, with their creative potential and contribute a piece of written work on a subject of their choice. I liaised with Byron's co-activist and writer Val Katagiri who had taken note of a couple of blog posts I had written as part of a dialogue with Simon Tam of rock group, The Slants. 

In brief, Tam had asked for community support for his band's efforts to trademark their band name - "The Slants". Tam's position was that words only have offensive power if we allow them to and, thus, by making racial slurs commonplace - like African-Americans have done with "N"-word - they lose their power to offend. As such, trademarking their name is a step in this direction of diminishing the offensive power of this particular slur. My position was (and continues to be) that racial slurs are not intended to offend and that if we are merely offended by racial slurs, then we miss the point of their purpose, and even worse, the opportunity to meaningfully address the profound, centuries-old, casual, and comfortable, foundation of anti-Asian prejudice. In the Western world, slurs of all kinds, but especially racial slurs, serve as a means to dehumanize individuals by assigning derogatory characteristics and qualities to the entire group which can then be distilled down to a single word that represents all of these negative characteristics. 

Thus, "slant", or "chink", or "gook" are not commentaries on the shape of Asian people's eyes, they serve as a means of putting Asians people "in their place" by reminding us and the people using them, that we are not humans who deserve respect and dignity, but creatures of a lower order whose actual individual names are not even worth knowing. Racial slurs serve as a record of the injustices inflicted on people of colour throughout America's history, and to be a slant meant that you were subject to oppression, abuse, and violence. So, being offended by racial slurs is a childish response to name-calling, because it is far more than childish name-calling. To truly see the absurdity of Tam's position, consider this; spitting in someone's face serves the same purpose as using a racial slur. Spitting on someone means that you have so little respect for them, and so little regard for their humanity that they are only worthy to receive your spit. With this in mind, should we also spit on ourselves to remove the "offensive" power of it?

With this in mind, my participation in the anthology is included as part of the dialogue between Tam and myself. You can read the general gist of the dialogue in these two posts, but the anthology contains pieces by both of us that greatly expand on the opinions expressed on this blog. So far Tam's efforts have been (and continue to be) denied on the grounds that the term "slant" is considered derogatory by Americans of Asian descent - it is a racial slur, after all. So in short, casually using a derogatory word does not challenge the profound underlying prejudices that enable the word to exist or the culture of racism that produces it. By coincidence I came upon this hilarious video of Russell Peters talking about how the word "Mondays" is (according to him) being used by white people as a devious way of referring to black people. It illustrates my point - the N-word isn't openly used by most white people but the underlying culture of racism obviously thrives and is finding more creative ways to express itself. In short, my position is that it is fundamentally a bad idea to try to persuade a government agency to take derogatory terms and make legitimize them. 

It is also worth remembering that the N-word is as "offensive" now as it ever was despite having been re-appropriated by African-Americans and becoming common usage amongst them. If you do not believe me, then I invite disbelievers to go up to the next African-American you see and address him with the N-word. Let us know what happens - my guess is that you will cause offence.

The anthology was published last year, but due to postal difficulties (things tend to get lost in the post, or might sometimes take weeks or even months to arrive), I only received my copy a few weeks back - hence my tardiness in mentioning it. The work is a collection pieces, including poetry, personal testimonials, essays, as well as intellectual pieces, all contributed by both men and women with backgrounds from all over Asia. This book is self-published and, perhaps, represents the beginning of a new avenue for Asian voices to be heard in print media that is free of the limitations, self-recrimination, and requirements of exotica, so often required of Asian-American writers hoping for publication in the mainstream. It was nice to read something from both Asian men and women that didn't lapse into the tired "pay attention to me mainstream America" cultural contrition characteristic of some works that cater to mainstream America.

The highlights, for me, were Byron Wongs' (author of the bigWOWO blog) essay on Asian-American masculinity, a piece by Sapna Cheryan on the effects of the perpetual foreigner stereotype on the Asian psyche, Robert Francis Flor's piece on his "manong" heroes, and Val Katagiri's touching piece called "Hikabusha" in which she describes her close connection with her grandmother. These are just the highlights -  the whole book was a joy to read and I thank Thymos, Byron, and Val, for including me and kudos for the idea to bring together diverse voices and opinions. The list of writers includes published authors and poets, activists, academics, and even no-bodies like me! My piece is called "What a Difference A Word Makes".

You can find the book on Amazon......Buy it! Now!!

Self-Censorship.

Because I'm Asian!

It should go without saying that racial stereotyping of Asians in American culture remains a significant issue that promotes negative attitudes and behaviours, and is a prominent factor in maintaining our cultural invisibility and marginalization. One way that negative stereotypes work is by promoting the idea that personality characteristics can be applied to an entire group so that members of that group are no longer viewed as individuals but as people whose character can be largely deduced from their racial grouping. In other words, stereotypical thinking overlooks individual qualities and promotes a simplified and dehumanized conception of a given group. The results of this simplification enables prejudicial behaviour on all levels, ranging from petty racism and harassment to violence or genocide.

For Asians in 21st Century America, this process of de-individuation is especially pertinent because it has become an axiom of modern American thinking that Asians are a fundamentally "group-oriented" - which is the acceptable way of saying that Asians lack individualism. The reason for this is tied up with decades (centuries even) of xenophobic thinking, fears of growing Asian global economic and political clout, and notions of Asian inferiority lingering at the core of western philosophical thought. Asserting that Asians are a "hive" - that is, submissive to and unquestioning of authority, as well as void of personality and creativity - serves to alleviate these fears by factualizing racist stereotypes; yes, Asian economies are strong, but Asians can't think, or Asians can't innovate, or Asians aren't creative, and so on.

The results of this process are starting to slowly reap an increasingly confident harvest of voices that seem to promote a kind of liberal institutional racism affecting Americans of Asian descent. For example, at all levels of education the "Asian Question" is being debated. Under question is the legitimacy of Asian-Americans' academic achievements - the increasingly general consensus being that the Asian lack of creativity and personality nullifies their high test scores, thus, making their high college attendance rates a kind of unfair obstacle to the rightful attendees - Latinos, blacks and whites - whose creativity and personalities are more deserving of college places, even though testing might show that many are not up to scratch academically.

Of course, entertainment provides us with a wealth of examples of how the notion of lack of individual personality qualities in Asians are both reflected and propagated through the medium of popular culture. Representations of Asian people (particularly Asian men) in America's media are heavily restricted to just a few limited types; enemy, arch-villain, side-kick, nerd, loser, yet almost never an individual with human or even humane qualities. The extent of this extreme limitation in imagery is so acute that it could be said to resemble censorship in its scope and practice. Naturally, these commonly accepted truths about Asian people leads to negative behaviours that have become socially acceptable modes of interaction for mainstream America with its Asian minority. Such is the acceptance of stereotypical thinking towards Asians that racial harassment of Asian at all levels of American society is openly and gloatingly reflected (and perpetrated) in film and television.

Yet, for me the worst aspect of this process of de-individuation is that many Asian-Americans themselves seem to adopt this way of thinking. For example, I watched a reality show recently - Hell's Kitchen if you need to know (don't judge!) - in which an Asian-American contestant was talking about a mistake he had made cooking a dish with fish and miso. His comment was that he shouldn't have made the mistake because "he was Asian" and he should know how to cook miso and fish. Yes, I know it was supposed to be light-hearted and cutesy, but this manner of expression actually reinforces de-individuation - in truth, the Asian chef should have known how to cook fish and miso because he is a chef with years of experience, not because he is Asian.

This way of thinking and expressing one's experience seems to be common amongst Asian-Americans. You see it on internet forums, you see it on blogs, you even see it coming from our "intelligentsia". Any number of qualities, characteristics, or experiences are explained (in whole, or part) as being, fundamentally, the result of "being Asian". Expressing our experience in this way is an implicit denial of individuality and, thus, a reinforcement of stereotypes. In a  fairly recent infamous example of this - as I wrote about here - Tiger Mom's brief flirtation with child-bullying infamy was littered with agency and individuality denying caveats - her action were implied to be somehow pre-determined by her culture or Asian-ness, and therefore mitigated by factors outside of her control. Yet, it is the expression of our individuality that we need to be nurturing because that is the predominant way that stereotypes dehumanize minorities.

This may seem like a minor peeve and an ungenerous criticism of a casual or playful way of expression, yet it could be seen to be a measure of the degree to which Asians are racialized in American culture. The first and most significant aspect of this process reflects the one-sided representation, and fundamentally hostile, manner of the cultural marginalization of Asians. Culture provides individuals with a reinforcement of their sense of inclusion and belonging to a society. Thus, culture reinforces (as well as propagates) beliefs that individuals have about themselves, their group, and their society by depicting recognizeable qualities and characteristics of society via archetypal characterizations and heroes with whom viewers can identify and hopefully recognize those qualities and characteristics within themselves.

In America, this avenue of identification doesn't exist for those of East Asian descent - in fact, the very opposite occurs; Asians (particularly Asian men) are explicitly excluded from identifying with America's cultural and social identity either via invisibility or racial-baiting. And perhaps it might be that with this very limited racialized frame of cultural self-reference for Asian-Americans becomes the only means through which they know how to view themselves - thus incorporating the very language and thinking that is the means of their exclusion. And this highlights the second aspect of of this phenomenon; Asian-American culture itself.

If it is true - as I've suggested - that culture promotes a kind of identity-consciousness of a society by presenting ideas, and language which enables individuals to explore, and develope their personal sense of individual identity, then the implication is that Asian-American culture still has a way to go before it can be said to have a similar influence on Asians' self-perceptions that mainstream culture has on the mainstream. Is our burgeoning Asian-America, and the culture it reflects, providing a language of self-description, that we can then recognize in others like us, and find community through the means of the language of individuality?

This obviously a loaded question and one to which I will say that I don't know the answer. But casual observation of Asians interacting with mainstream America suggests that many of us have adopted the language of stereotype and de-individuation, as opposed to the language of personal empowerment, and individual agency. This is a form of self-censorship - one that may even be unconscious most times - and it illustrates the power that demeaning imagery can exert on the mind.

Social Anonymity

Disfiguring The Asian Face.

I read an interesting article on the BBC news website that discussed the private and social experiences of people who have suffered from the disfiguring condition of Bell's Palsy. The condition is a dysfunction of cranial nerves which leads to partial facial paralysis, leaving sufferers facially disfigured. Interest piqued, I embarked on a brief cyber-surf looking for more information on the phenomenon on disfigurement and how it affects the sufferers, socially, emotionally, and psychologically. During this research I became aware of a sense of deja vu from what I was reading, and came to realize that some of the testimonies of facially disfigured individuals could be seamlessly interchanged with that of Asian-Americans (myself included) and easily reveal much about our experiences and our uneasy presence in western societies.

Naturally, this was something of a shock because I, like most Asians, am not disfigured, yet, the experiences of some disfigured individuals reveals some very striking similarities between disfigurement bigotry and anti-Asian racism. Asian racial characteristics are routinely mocked and singled out for abuse throughout mainstream culture, and the pervasiveness of harassment of Asian children and mockery of their racial characteristics by their non-Asian peers is a testament to how ingrained hostile reactions to our racial characteristics are in American society. What this means is that even as children, non-Asians are conditioned to think of Asian racial characteristics as abnormal and behave as though mockery of them is natural. Sadly, many Asians themselves, become conditioned by this process to think of their own racial characteristics with shame and embarrassment. A key difference, however, is that whereas the mockery and distaste for facial characteristics of Asian people is considered socially acceptable, mocking the disfigured is ostensibly frowned upon even though it obviously exists.

One interesting point of note is the way that the condition of disfigurement somehow becomes a public consideration along with the individual who suffers from it. The Bell's sufferers in the BBC article report a kind of shift in the social rules in that normal behaviour is often suspended in social situations in which they find themselves. For example, many of their social interactions are often characterized by staring and inappropriate overly personal questioning, or outright rudeness and hostility. So the normal rules of social introduction and interaction shift so that there is a presumptive dynamic in which a disfigured person is "answerable" for their condition - that is, the normal rules of social interaction are "leapfrogged" permitting rude behaviour and awkward, uncomfortable, and overly-personal (for the person being grilled) questioning.

In this interesting YouTube video, an advocate for the disfigured (at 1:21) talks about a loss of "social anonymity" experienced by the disfigured. Their condition prompts presumptions about their character, leading to behaviour that causes them discomfort and distress and even leads to intimidation. It is almost impossible not to notice the familiarity of these experiences because they could be easily interchanged with those of Asian-Americans and paint an accurate portrait of how Asians are conceived of in America's culture and society and how these perceptions drive negative behaviour.

This notion of suspending accepted social norms is a common feature of the Asian-American experience. Possibly the most frequent and common manifestation of this phenomenon is being accosted by total strangers demanding to know where you are from (racist heckling is another example of social acceptance of suspending the social rules). Ostensibly an insignificant issue, until we notice the contextual anomaly of this social interaction. Accosting people that you don't know and who insist on asking personal questions is completely socially inappropriate - even by American standards. If you were to go up to a white American that you didn't know (or barely knew), they would be completely thrown by the question and would feel extreme discomfort - I know because I have done it (you should too). Why the discomfort? Because it is a very personal question and knowing the answer to it tells you absolutely nothing about the individual in front of you. Yet, I suspect that many non-Asians believe that knowing the geographical origin of the Asian person you happen to be harassing with this line of questioning does reveal insights into their character.

Of course, this is because the guidelines of behaviour followed by mainstream America are modeled by cultural depictions in which Asians are typically portrayed as de-individuated curiosities at best or debased objects at worst. What America's media racism models for non-Asians is a certainty about the characters of the Asian people being depicted such that the irrational idea arises that knowing geographical origin does indeed grant a profound insight into that person's character. Because Asian racial characteristics are depicted as anomalous and are routinely mocked and denigrated in American culutre, I would suggest that non-Asians are conditioned to respond or react to Asian faces and the human beings attached to them, in the same manner that people would react to disfigurement. The key difference being that disfigurement has an element of pathos attached to it granting some degree of dignity or compassion from society. Asian racial characteristics and the accompanying "knowledge" these physical characteristics reveal are almost entirely associated with negative character qualities and irredeemable differentness.

Thus, this notion of social anonymity is a social privilege that is almost guaranteed to non-Asians, but casually denied to Asian-Americans. The narrative of Asians is entirely authored by a mainstream culture that promotes, with authority, the idea Asians can be conceived of  in a generic way such that geographical origin, racial background, and physical characteristics, can inform enquirers about character more than the specific life experience of any given individual. What this means is that social anonymity guarantees non-Asians enough personal space to be able to tell their own story about who they are because there are no presumptions about them - more importantly, non-Asians generally don't have to deal with negative presumptions.

In summary, American culture has generated such a negative attitude towards Asian racial characteristics that it can be argued that such physical qualities elicit similar cultural and social responses experienced by people with facial disfigurements. The most compelling evidence for this comes from anti-Asian racism in America's schools - non-Asian kids learn by practicing bullying and harassment that Asian racial characteristics are abnormal and (aided by denigrating cultural depictions of Asians) that such qualities reflect negative character traits. As a result, many Asian kids grow up with negative feelings about their own racial characteristics and will often self-represent them negatively - that is measure of how successfully America has made the Asian face into an aberration.

The Fulcrum Of White Supremacy

Asia's Forgotten History.

I've come across a blog called "Race Files" run by a guy named Scot Nakagawa whose commentaries are typically very insightful. In one of his posts from this past May titled "Blackness Is The Fulcrum", Nakagawa explains how and why his activism has become focused on anti-Black racism even though as an Asian man he might almost certainly have enough material to explore racism in depth.

As he explains, his reason is simple......

So why do I expend so much effort on lifting up the oppression of black people? Because anti-black racism is the fulcrum of white supremacy......A fulcrum is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the support about which a lever turns” or, alternatively, “one that supplies capability for action.” In other words, if you want to move something, you need a pry bar and some leverage, and what gives you leverage is the fulcrum – that thing you use so the pry bar works like a see-saw.

He goes on to describe the conditions of under-privilege, institutional racism, and inequality that has come to define the experience of black America. What is most strange about this post is that it is so correct on so many points, yet, I think that Nakagawa is actually mistaken in his conclusions that anti-black racism is what supplies the capability for action. Given the extreme abuse and prejudice that Africans, and African-Americans have experienced over the past few centuries, this might seem like a strange thing to say. Yet, if we examine history we can easily see that white supremacy predates America and that whatever forces contributed to the development of the racialized society that characterizes America's past and present, anti-black racism fails as an explanation for it.

Furthermore, white supremacy underlines almost every modern day inequality that we see around the world today - both within the US amongst its ethnic groups, as well as across the world as reflected in the variance in rates of poverty, wealth and power distribution, and political instability, that exists between the white countries and the nations whom they formerly colonized. The modern world with all of its racially delineated inequalities emerged out of the West's imperial meddling. So, claiming that America's anti-black racism provides the capability for the action that is the foundation of white supremacy is, thus, the same as saying that anti-black racism is what drove the European nations to embark on the imperial activities which led to the racial hierarchies that exist in the world today both between ethnic groups in the US and internationally in the power inequalities between nations. In other words,what this means is that implicit in Nakagawa's claim is the notion that anti-black racism was the driving force behind western imperialism because the structures of modern day racism and the white supremacy that upholds it were all established in this period.

Awkwardly, the historical record refuses to co-operate with this notion. The established fact is that Asia was colonized centuries before Europe even considered colonizing Africa. For at least the first two centuries of European colonialism Africa was simply an obstacle to sail around, and was largely ignored. Europe's oldest colonies were in The Phillipines, Macau, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and India - granted, Europeans established coastal forts along the coast of Africa, but these served largely to foster the movement of goods and people stolen or traded from the Asian colonies. So, why would the white supremacy that drove European imperialism ignore Africa if these notions of white supremacy were based on anti-black racism? The answer is that anti-black racism is not the foundation of white supremacist thinking and, therefore, cannot be the foundation of white supremacy.

Understanding what drove Europeans (and later, Americans) to wage centuries-long wars of aggression against the unsuspecting peoples of Asia, The Americas, and Africa, is really the only way to understand white supremacy and how it came to be the dominant characteristic of the global world order. But what has to be understood most of all, is that the West's war against non-white peoples began with an assault on Asia.

Throughout the Medieval period as trade between Asia and Europe grew, commodities like silk and spices became highly prized in Europe (as they had been since ancient times) and the wealth that was generated was coveted by European merchants and kings who set about to find ways to control this trade. Thus, the objective of the first wave of imperialism was to gain control of these prized markets by coercion, conquest, and enslavement - when Columbus "discovered" America he was on his his way to find a route to Asia to do this exact thing.

Yet, the background to this lies in antiquity.  Ever since the age of classical Greece, the power and wealth of Asia has been feared and envied by the West and it is ideas of influential classical Greek thinkers that formed the basis for justification for the European right to rule, which evolved over the centuries into the justification for the right (and necessity) to colonize, and which ultimately became the basis for the racial hierarchy of white supremacy. As far back as the 5th Century BC, thinkers like Hippocrates, and Aristotle began to formulate concepts of race and racial differences between the peoples that they encountered which placed Greeks firmly at the top of a racial hierarchy. According to Aristotle "Asiatics" were servile and suited to being ruled because they endured tyranny without challenging it.......

The power possessed by all of these [non-Greek Kingships] resembles that of tyrannies, but they govern according to law and are hereditary; [20] for because the barbarians are more servile in their nature than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule without any resentment. ....[Link]

And here......

The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent......

Hippocrates goes a step further, and in his writings we should note some very familiar stereotypes.....

 I say, then, that Asia differs very much from Europe as to the nature of all things, both With regard to the productions of the earth and the inhabitants, for everything is produced much more beautiful and large in Asia; the country is milder, and the dispositions of the inhabitants also are more gentle and affectionate.

 Aww, how sweet! But then.....

Manly courage, endurance of suffering, laborious enterprise, and high spirit, could not be produced in such a state of things either among the native inhabitants [of Asia]..... 

Oh.

But here, we learn Hippocrates' true feelings.....

with regard to the pusillanimity and cowardice of the inhabitants, the principal reason the Asiatics are more unwarlike and of gentler disposition than the Europeans is ......the Asiatic race is feeble, and further, owing to their laws; for monarchy prevails in the greater part of Asia, and where men are not their own masters nor independent, but are the slaves of others......

So, already we can see that several concepts about race are taking shape; an implied "nobility" of Greek (European) nature (white superiority), the superiority of Greek socio-political systems, it is in the nature of Asiatics (and other non-Greeks) to be subservient (inferiority of Asians), and that the Greek nature lies perfectly at the middle of two extremes between Asiatics and Barbarians - that is, both intelligent and physically powerful (compare to modern day Race Realists who proclaim the white race to be at the perfect middle of the racial extremes of black physicality and Asian intelligence). It should also be noted that for the Greeks (and later the Romans) climate was a major factor in determining the racial characteristics of various peoples - this is important in establishing the continuity of these ancient stereotypes up to the present. So right here, we can see ideas taking shape that can be described as some kind of primitive white supremacy.

It has to be noted that these ideas about Asia referred to the peoples of the Persian empire, but this idea of an ominous East populated by a cultured but intrinsically different (and inferior) people who pose an existential threat to the ideals of Western freedom, is a notion that echoes loud and clear up to the present day. Following the Greeks, the ancient Romans also viewed Asia with suspicion and envy. To them it was a land populated by morally inferior people, whose influence on the integrated Roman populace could only be negative. Throughout western history these ideas have resurfaced in one form or another such that a continuity of racialized thinking originating with Europe's earliest philosophers and carried forward to today is almost undeniable.

Throughout the medieval period the works of ancient Greek thinkers resurfaced amongst Christian theologians, and Aristotle's "Politics" (from which the first two quotes above are taken) was translated into Latin in the 12th century and became very influential in Catholic philosophy which some believe contributed to legitimizing Europe's slave trade. From the Middle Ages onwards, study of the ancient Greek thinkers (like Hippocrates and in particular Aristotle) was integral to education in Europe and it has been suggested that this rediscovery of ancient philosophy drove the Renaissance. It is unsurprising, then that later on still, we see many of these ancient concepts of race and the right to rule surfacing in the work of early race scientists who expanded on these ideas first formulated by the Greeks. Although "scientific" racism vastly expanded the scope of racist thinking, it is not hard to find similar threads of thought that echo these ancient concepts. Racial physiognomy, the notion that climate is a determinant of racial characteristics, as well as reiterations of centuries old stereotypes, are all to be found in the writings of scientific racist literature of this time.

It seems clear then that the modern concept and practice of white supremacy has a history pre-dating anti-black racism, and that the idea of European (white) superiority and the right to rule has its roots in the writings of ancient Greek thinkers. Underlying many of the most influential of these writings is an implicit theme of the "East" presenting an existential threat to the West, and it is this East/West conflict that has come to underscore the character of the modern geopolitical world. It is primarily against Asian culture and civilization that Greek thinkers measured the superiority of their own civilization and racial characteristics, and by so doing, asserted their right to rule. And this is important for several reasons.

This idea of an East/West conflict is the one theme that carries forward from ancient times to the present. From the days of classical Greece whose civilization faced an existential threat from Persia (remember also that Alexander the Great was a pupil of Aristotle), through to the first wave of European imperialism that sought to monopolize East/West trade through conquest, and on up to the present time of Muslim/western conflicts and economic conflicts with far Eastern countries, it is this idea of a heroic West locked in existential combat with a barbaric and menacing East that underlies the identity of Western civilization - it is by way of comparison to civilizations of the East that the West has been found to be superior. Hand-in-hand with this is the notion of a racially inadequate Asiatic whose subservient nature makes him unsuitable for little more than servitude. Clearly, the idea of servile Asiatics whose subservience justifies European rule, is a concept that has survived through the ages as successive generations of Western thinkers have studied the works of their predecessors all the way back to ancient Greece.

Given all of this, it seems short-sighted to claim that anti-black racism is the fulcrum (foundation) of white supremacy. The white supremacist thinking that drove Europeans in the 15th century to claim the right to own Asian lands and people derives from a separate philosophy of racism over two-thousand years in the making that exists regardless of Western attitudes towards Africans. In fact, some of the earliest black slaves were carried to China (and worked alongside Chinese slaves) by the Portuguese to develope and exploit stolen lands. Thus, in some ways and some instances, it is more accurate to say that the enslavement of Africans (and the subsequent "scientific and religious justifications thereof) is a by-product of the philosophical tradition that sought to justify the European's right to rule over Asia and which forms a fundamental aspect of the Western identity as a superior entity to civilizations of the East.

Not recognizing this history only upholds white supremacy. Given that one of the major geopolitical themes we see recurring over the past several decades has been this struggle of Western economies to maintain their hegemony over upstart East Asian nations, whose economic prowess challenges the very basis of white power. The West's shrill, fear-mongering, concerning Asian economies seems to view Asian economic prosperity (that is an Asian middle-class who can afford TVs and cars) as an affront to their identities and a threat to their survival, and is a modern day manifestation of this centuries-old way of thinking about the "rightful" world order which has whites at the top and everyone else below in no preferable order. This notion that there is an existential East/West conflict is one of the drivers of the suppression of minorities in Western countries - those who are excluded from the upper echelons of the racial hierarchy pose a threat to it and thus, to ignore the history of this philosophy and its present-day manifestations handicaps the fight against racism.

In summary, although anti-black racism has been persistent, it can only be said to tell a portion of the story of how white supremacy came to dominate the thinking and attitudes of western cultures. Clearly, the role of what ancient Greek and successive European thinkers came to view as an existentially significant East/West struggle that spawned twenty-five hundred year-old racial stereotypes about Asian people, as well as the notion of the right to conquer and rule, forms a substantial portion of the foundation of white supremacy. Without it, history and the modern world may well have been considerably more egalitarian.

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. 

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.