Çinli Gibi!

Tsunamis and The Children Of The Corn.

As I've alluded to elsewhere, the Asian experience of racism in America bears some comparison to a campaign of terrorism. For instance, terrorists seek to manipulate, disempower, intimidate, and coerce a population into acceding to various demands and beliefs in order to empower themselves, yet, a society that promotes and normalizes racial hostility, violence, and behaviours through demeaning stereotypes and xenophobic socio-political rhetoric creates a similar relationship between the mainstream and the target minority as the relationship between the terrorist organization and the citizens it targets.

Where I presently reside, the existence of various militant separatist, anarchist, nationalist, and religious groups makes for an interesting cocktail of potential hazards of the explosive kind. Three years ago a bomb was discovered in a Burger King just down the street from my apartment, and earlier this year a suicide bomber martyred himself in one of the City's main squares. Suffice it to say that even though these types of incidences are rare, I would be lying if I were to say that the thought of being caught in a bomb blast whilst sitting in my favourite coffee shop, or shopping at the grocery store, is not always at the back of my mind.

Obscenely, this sense of foreboding that a bomb might go off is analagous to the experience of being Asian in America. Just as in a society that lives with an internal terrorist threat in which its citizens can never foresee the next martyr, but who know that one will come along sooner or later, Asians in America never really know when their race is going to be a problem for someone, somewhere. It could be in a favourite cafe, or whilst shopping at the grocery store, but sooner or later, someone will remind us that being Asian means casually routine harassment and racial baiting, and perhaps even violence.

It is precisely because American culture normalizes racist attitudes and behaviours towards its Asian minority that an environment has been created in which interactions with the mainstream often carries with it the likelihood for racial denigration or even violence. Yet, because depictions of racial violence and harassment forms the core of representations of Asian people in American culture, this is not considered an abnormal state of affairs. Hence, just like someone who is trying to live a normal life knowing that a terrorist's bomb could go off any time or anywhere, many in the Asian minority exists in a state of expectation knowing that an inevitable explosion of casual (or even casually violent) racism will impinge upon their lives. Society is set up to ensure this.

American culture (and hence American society) is abnormal in its xenophobic hostility to the epicanthic fold and the single eyelid. If you refer to the title of this post - "Çinli Gibi" - it is Turkish for "(He  looks) like a Chinese", and I heard a group of small Kurdish kids saying it about me whilst I was walking through my neighbourhood recently. I looked over at them and smiled, to which they responded in accented English, "Hello!" and then giggled. I waved and continued on whilst the kids went back to playing. Just a case of innocent curiosity - how normal! If this had occurred in America, the kids would be likely to have a selection of choice epithets to hurl at me, and the tone of the exchange would likely have been alot uglier.

This offers a great insight into how sick and aberrative American culture is when it comes to its attitudes to its Asian minority because, by contrast, mainstream American kids seem to be armed with a ready supply of racist attitudes and epithets that they are seemingly not discouraged from using in their interactions with Asian people. It is Asian-American children who experience this most intensely - yet what can it mean for American society and the place of the Asian minority within it when America's children go through the most impressionable years of their lives with the belief that it is normal to use racial epithets towards Asian people?

To me the recent outpouring of anti-Japanese feeling in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami is simply confirmation that the practice of rearing American children to think of Asians in dehumanizing ways has been a great success, and that we should not be surprised that this apparent inability to have a human connection with Asian people is so prevalent - it is how many of these people have been taught to think since childhood.

Goodbye Cruel World...For A While!

Oh the drama! Google Blgger has been blocked by the authorities here. I wish that I could say that dramatic, historically significant events were the reason for this (well, actually, maybe not), but the truth is that there is an epic struggle going on over the broadcasting rights for soccer games.

Apparently, some bloggers with Google have been posting videos of games on their sites - which is taking money out of the pockets of the multi-billion dollar media companies - a big no-no.

On the positive side, it's possible to occasionally get around the block and get to my dashboard to publish comments, but for some reason I can't post comments of my own - so no replies for now! Sorry. I'm not even sure if this post will make it through.

Stay posted - I'm hoping that the issue will be resolved quickly.

Outsiders

Being A Harbinger Of Things Unheard Of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsung Heroes

Asian Footballers.

As a long-time soccer fan - and an Asian! - I have observed with some degree of enthusiasm the steady but definite improvement in the overall quality of East Asian players and teams in the last twenty-five years. As two of the most economically prosperous countries in the East, it seems natural that Japan and South Korea would be the leaders in developing domestic soccer leagues and youth development programs which have produced some talented players and exciting teams. In the recent World Cup in South Africa, both teams performed reasonably well and produced some exciting football to illustrate that the gap in quality between the traditional football powers (Europe and South America) and Asia  is slowly decreasing.

Japan and South Korea's heavy investment in soccer has paid dividends, with several players from both countries earning the opportunity to play with some of Europe's teams in the world's toughest leagues. The now retired Hidetoshi Nakata became something of a flamboyant sex symbol/superstar whilst playing in the Italian League, and was nominated for the Footballer of The Year Award several times. South Korean, Park-Ji-Sung, has become a regular for Manchester United - one of the world's most renowned teams. Park has become something of an unsung hero of Manchester and a cult hero amongst its fans. Keisuke Honda has impressed in the Russian league and seems poised to become a true soccer hero. Most recently, Japanese player Yuto Nagamoto has joined Italian football giants, Inter Milan. Quick and tricky, he torments opponents with pentetrating runs and dangerous crosses. In addition to these four, there are, and have, been several others playing in European leagues who have become an integral part of their teams and have been embraced by their team's fans.

Apart from enjoying the skill and passion that Asian footballers like these bring to the game, the development and inclusion of Asian men as sportsmen in a mainstream pastime represents a potential avenue toward changing negative stereotypes. I tend to feel that the role that Asian sportsmen can play in countering demeaning stereotypes is often overlooked or ignored. The general consensus seems to be that it is through media characters that project a positive image of Asian men that the image of our demographic will improve. I don't necessarily agree with this entirely.

It could be argued that, historically, it has been through the process of excelling at sports where the most dramatic shifts in attitudes and beliefs about racial groups has been the most apparent. For instance, the great Jack Johnson almost single-handedly destroyed the myth of white physical superiority by defeating the best white boxers of his era. Granted, there was a severe reaction to his success, but after Johnson it could only be a matter of time before black boxers would be given opportunities in the ring. In soccer itself, players like Pele and Eusebio became football gods at a time when racial discrimination was the norm. Now, in the present era, black players make up a huge percentage of soccer players and along with it has come the commitment of reducing discrimination and racism in football.

This is why Asian sportsmen should be viewed as being at the forefront of the fight against demeaning stereotypes and beliefs about Asian men. No doubt, positive media representations can only be a good thing, but ultimately a movie hero depictions are escapism that we all know isn't real. A successful sportsman, on the other hand, competes and hopefully excels in real events where, as Asian men, they are not expected to do well. Just like modern day Jack Johnsons, Asian sportsmen are contradicting the notion that Asian men are inherently weaker than non-Asians, and are thus, slowly breaking down barriers in perception and in society in general.

Groupon - Tibet - 2011 Super Bowl Commercial Ad

LOL!!!



Apparently many people (Asian and non-Asian alike) are indignant about this ad, so I know I'm not supposed to find it funny, but I did. Why? Because it was possibly some of the most honest advertising I've seen, particularly with regards to Asians.

As we all might agree, Asian representation in the media is largely derogatory or mocking of Asian people and their cultures. If there is one thing that I would say with certainty, it is that the dignity and humanity of East and Southeast Asian peoples are routinely mocked and demeaned by American culture. Racial harassment of Asians through television, film, and radio is commonplace and propagates a culture that sees harassment of Asians as a normal and acceptable activity.

This is why I've always been skeptical about this claim that people in the west are concerned about upholding the humanity, dignity, and rights of any Asian people. American culture promotes harassment and racist behaviour towards its Asian minority, and does so without concern for the dignity and well-being of those people. So, it's extremely dfficult for me to believe that there is some magical process by which a people who are culturally inculcated with dehumanizing images of Asians can have genuine attitudes of compassion for those people.

One of the main criticisms of this advert was that it trivializes the suffering of the Tibetans. Yet, that is actually no different than demanding human rights for the Chinese or Burmese who suffer under totalitarianism, whilst at the same time embracing a culture that demeans and dehumanizes those very people. How can the west claim to be concerned about the suffering of various peoples in Asia, when their cultures trivializes this suffering by demeaning Asian peoples' humanity with mockery?

Why does Tibet garner such indignation when its peoples' suffering is trivialized? Part of the answer might be that some high-profile "Free Tibet" spokespeople happen to be well-known celebrities who are apparently seeking enlightenment by supporting this cause. The irony, of course, is that these celebs are influential in an industry that routinely discriminates against Asians (particularly Asian men) and propagates the culture of dehumanization of Asian people, and they haven't once spoken out against it.

Karma is a bitch.

Understanding The Rise Of China

The Sophist's Choice.

This interesting TED talk was posted up at the Alpha Asian and bigWOWO blogs, and offers some insights into some of the western world's attitudes regarding Asia. I will admit, though, that I felt somewhat none-the-wiser by the end of the talk.....





As you can see, the gist of the talk seems to be that China is so different that it can never be expected to "become like the West" and that in order to understand China's rise to prominence one must take into account specific qualities that make it atypical. Jacques presents three main points that he calls "building blocks" to help us understand the rise of China.

To be honest I was really underwhelmed by Jacques' talk and found his ideas to be overly simplistic. Much of what he concluded didn't follow from his arguments and at certain points his arguments were actually evidence against the conclusions that he drew - all founded upon some sweeping generalizations and an inept grasp of historical nuance. Jacques simply seems to be making mountains out of molehills, and perceiving differences where they don't actually exist.

His first point attempts to point out how China doesn't think, act or have the characteristics of a nation state and is therefore distinct from the west. Yet, all of the characteristics that he presents that are supposed to show that China is not a nation state (common ethnicity, common cultural values) are actually the very qualities that define a nation state. Here is a good definition of what a nation state is....

'country in which a nation of principally the same type of people exists, organized by either race or cultural background. In the nation-state, generally, everyone would speak the same language, probably practice the same or similar types of religion, and share a set of cultural, “national,” values'.

....somehow because China has different cultural characteristics it is disqualified from the calling itself a nation state. He goes on to insist that China's use of more than one system within its sovereign territory is further evidence that it is not a nation state. Yet, this is simply false. There is no reason why a nation state can't have multiple systems and conditions existing within its borders. Ironically, the UK is an example of this. As part of the terms that turned the British Isles into the "United Kingdom", the constituent kingdoms that comprised it were permitted to maintain many of their own cultural, ethnic, religious, and even legal identities, so according to Jacques definition, the UK cannot be a nation state. Of course, this is nonsense, and only highlights the fact that Jacques has re-defined terms and applied them selectively in order to create this idea of a gulf of distinction.

Jacques' second point actually has no point and is really a pejoritive dressed up as a sophisticated observation. Here, Jacques waxes poetic about the inherent racism of the Chinese and how their attitudes set them apart from the enlightened west. The most obscene aspect of this part of the video is the ease with which Jacques presumes to know the attitudes of 1 billion people, and makes casual generalizations about them. Such is the power of white privilege and the white sense of superiority. Of  course, the biggest irony is that the more Jacques describes this ethnic chauvinism of the Chinese, the more they seem to sound exactly like Europeans.

In the third and final point of Jacques' talk he highlights the subservient nature of the Chinese. He begins by using a fuzzy application of terms. He says.....

...the relationship between the state and society [in China] is very different from that in the west......in the west we see the authority and legitimacy of the state as a function of democracy....the Chinese state enjoys more legitimacy and more authority amongst the Chinese than is true with any western state....

The first problem with this is that nowhere is the legitimacy and authority of the state a function of democracy - not even in the west. This is because the nation state gets its legitimacy and authority from those factors that define it as a nation state. It is a government that gets its legitimacy from the democratic process, no-one votes (except in cases of separatist referendums) on whether or not their state should exist - it is simply taken for granted that it should exist and no-one votes for their state to cease to exist. Of course, when a government's authority comes from itself then what you have is an authoritarian entity, and in the case of China, this is a totalitarian entity. But, so what? Didn't we already know this? Even worse is Jacques' suggestion that totalitarianism is somehow embraced by the Chinese psyche. The reason that the Chinese state (and I think Jacques actually means "government" here) enjoys so much legitimacy amongst the Chinese is because they have the power and will to run a two thousand volt electrical charge through your testicles if you show dissent. Yet, this hugely important fact doesn't figure into Jacques lesson on how to understand China, in fact, it's looking more and more like he actually doesn't really understand China at all.

The biggest question mark over Jacques' actual understanding of China can be found in what he omitted from his talk. Jacques and most other China pundits like to conveniently forget that the west tried to destroy China economically, politically and culturally during the colonial period. Even the though the west has forgotten this, China hasn't. Resistance to colonialism was one of the factors that drove the communist revolution, explains China's distrust of the west, and was a significant factor in much of its internal and foreign policy in the past half century.

In short, Jacques' contentions seem to be based on historical illiteracy and some questionable logical contortions. For instance, he talks about the "Holy Roman Empire splitting up 2000 years ago", which is strange because the Holy Roman Empire didn't come into existence until 1100 years ago and only dissolved in the 18th century - 300 years ago. Maybe he was talking about the division of the Roman Empire proper into East and Western portions, but that was a purely poltical endeavour which wasn't based on any civilizational or cultural divisions. If Jacques doesn't grasp the nuances of his own history, then why should I believe that he is capable of grasping the nuances of the history and culture of China? Jacques has used cultural and historical factors extremely selectively in his talk in a way that suggests a confirmation bias on his part. In fact, the more Jacques describes China, the more they appear to be motivated by many of the same factors that motivate the west.

Overall, Jacques is following a pattern of over-simplification which I alluded to in a previous post. Basically, this type of knowledge dissemination is based upon the fact that it is possible to make all kinds of over-generalized claims about Asia and its peoples and have them accepted by mainstream consumers without question as accurate- even when they are obviously a-historical and logically incoherent.

Asians Eat White Kids For Breakfast

With Chopsticks, Of Course.

In the furor created by the recent "Tiger Mom" article in the Wall Street Journal, it would have been easy to miss out on the fact that few, if any, mainstream commentators displayed any kind of skepticism that Amy Chua may have been guilty of over-generalization in her assertions that her periodically vituperative parenting exuberance was somehow representative of the wider parenting philosophy of the Asian community. In the news dissemination industry where journalists are traditionally taught to dig deeper into a story in order to better determine its efficacy, it is especially surprising that this generalization fallacy was so easily overlooked, and perhaps even embraced.

It brought home for me how willingly society seems to accept the idea that Asians can be conceived of as a single unit, where the qualities exhibited by one Asian can be rapidly generalized as the truth for the entire group and applied accordingly. Even worse is the realization that you can make just about any claim about Asians and it's veracity won't be challenged in the mainstream. The reason for this, I believe, is that Asians have become so de-individuated in mainstream culture, and consequently in the general social consciousness, that it has become normative - and simply less troublesome - to dismiss Asians as a collective entity and not see them as individuals with unique qualities and perspectives. This sociological truth enables the mainstream to feel secure in its own superiority, and transforms anti-Asian discrimination into some kind of natural outcome of Asian cultural deficiencies and not mainstream bigotry.

What this all suggests is that when Easterly Asiatic peoples or their cultures are discussed by the mainstream, reason and logic seem to fly out the window, and are replaced by a gullible inability (or lack of desire) to sort through fact from farce, all with the proclivity toward low-key hysteria. In essence what this means is that the mainstream engages with the Asian minority from an irrational position, from which any and all suggestions that reinforce their pre-conceived (usually negative) notions about us are generally accepted without question, and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as aberrative.

Naturally, this is a prodigious issue for the Asian minority. Here we are trying to engage in dialogue through literature, art, music, politics and so on, but the mainstream we are trying to reach aren't often engaging with us from a place of logic and reason. The mainstream consciousness is so inculcated with the notion of the uniform indistinguishability of Asians that they literally don't see us as individuals and it is because of this cultural pre-disposition to think of Asian people in derogatory ways, that negative beliefs about us are so easily disseminated as truths.

For the Asian minority, this manifests as a challenge to reassess our ways of perceiving the manner of our interactions with the mainstream (and with ourselves). Because our reception by the mainstream is founded upon irrational gut-reactions to de-personalized pejorative stereotypes of its own creation, any challenge to it requires a staunch re-assertion of Asians as individual entities. This approach leaves no room for the kind of backpedaling defense into cultural relativity as exhibited by Chua in her Wall Street Journal article and in her subsequent interviews. Those in the Asian minority who seek to present an honest understanding of their community simply do not have the privilege of using the over-generalizing language employed by Chua (and many others) - this simply undermines their own endeavours.

The Case For More Anti-Asian Bias In College Admissions

A Blessing In Disguise?

As an Asian man I belong to a demographic that is routinely misrepresented in society by gross generalizations and stereotypes. Most of the Asian men I've known come nowhere close to being the type of pathetic individuals that society apparently needs them to be. It's because of this experience that I have adopted a rule of thumb that reminds me that when discussing groups of people, the only generalization that one can accurately make is that it is more misleading than accurate to make generalizations. Apart from the vulgar generalizations such as pointing out that all people eat and defecate (does this need pointing out?) all other generalizations regarding particular groups' motivations and attitudes offer us limited capacity to truly appreciate the humanity of others.

On the subject of over-generalization and defecation, I couldn't help but be moved by a recent Wall Street Journal article written by Amy Chua, a second-generation Chinese-American mother of two - possibly psychologically damaged - teenage girls. According to Chua an extremely tough approach to parenting involving verbal abuse, totalitarian control over her childrens' desires, as well as starvation blackmail, are what is required to produce math whizzes and musical prodigies in one's children. She labels this the "Chinese Mother" approach.

In an apparent effort to avoid the charge of propagating racial and cultural stereotypes, she goes on to insist that this approach is not exclusive to Chinese mothers since she apparently knows mothers from other ethnic and cultural groups who engage in this type of child rearing. Yet, despite the disclaimer, Chua represents her method as an approach practiced by the general Chinese parenting body. To me this is both cowardly and dishonest.

Clearly Chua believes that she is presenting an approach to parenting that might be construed by her target audience (the white mainstream) as controversial. As she readily admits, some of her practices could be considered abusive and unacceptable to the white mainstream audience that she is apparently trying to convince. One might even say that her article is deliberately provocative and has the triumphal tone of someone convinced of their own rightness. Yet despite the self-assured posturing of the article's tone, not once does Chua take personal responsibility for her actions. Having thrown the rocks of controversy, she beats a hasty retreat behind the Great Wall of Chinese Cultural Mystique. She does these things that are arguably abusive yet slyly absolves herself of personal responsibility by "disappearing" behind the veil of cultural relativity.

This to me is intellectual cowardice. If Chua wants to paint herself as some kind of maverick parent promoting a superior alternative parenting method then fine, but don't make unfounded claims that these strategies are typical to Chinese culture - they might very well be, but the article doesn't do a good job of convincing me of it. Certainly, Chua attempts to support her claims by mentioning studies that show that Chinese parents don't think that learning should be fun, and that Asian parents drill their kids more than white parents. Yet, how does this support her claims that verbal abuse, threats, and threats to deny food are a common practice amongst Chinese parents? It doesn't.

As a Professor of Law at Yale and a Harvard graduate, Chua could arguably be said to represent the very best that Asian-American academia has to offer for the intellectual advancement of Asian-American thinking. Yet, the blatantly weak inductive reasoning exhibited in the article points to some very serious issues with the reasoning capacities of even our most academically accomplished individuals. To be fair, the article is only an excerpt from Chua's new book and so may not necessarily reflect the overall gist of the book, yet most writers publish excerpts that are most representative of the themes that they are exploring in the larger publication. It doesn't look good!

If the thinking exhibited in this article reflects the very best that Asian-American minds have to offer, then Chua has destroyed the motivational foundation for her parenting style. What's the point of striving for prodigy and Ivy-League when the result seems to be intellectual mediocrity?

Where's That Innate Moral Sense When You Need It?

Forcing People To Act Right.

Earlier this month a settlement was finally reached between the Justice Department and the School District of Philadelphia which amounts to an acknowledgement that the district and school administrators overlooked racially biased harassment and violence directed at Asian children at South Philly High School. As part of the agreement it is required that........

"...the district hire a consultant focused on preventing harassment and discrimination, will serve as a nationwide standard for school systems trying to prevent bullying........[and] Philadelphia schools to develop a plan for preventing bullying; conduct training to increase multicultural awareness; and maintain records of harassment..."

A combination of indifference, alleged participation in harassment by school adminstrators as well as accusations of mishandling written reports of abuse (that is, many reports were simply thrown away), all demonstrate that school admins and the District engaged in a cynical effort to hide evidence of their own abdication of responsibility as well as their evasions in addressing racially biased abuse perpetrated by elements of the student body and staff. All of this demonstrates that racist attitudes towards Asians amongst both staff and students were allowed to foment eventually manifesting as acts of physical violence - you are what you do.

Of course, this type of black/Asian conflict isn't new both in American schools and beyond. Remember Lafayette High School? The situation there bears some eerie similarities to the South Philly conflict. It is this dynamic of minority on minority prejudice that gives this situation and others like it such a complex and almost untouchable character. By tradition it is the well documented and acknowledged oppression of Africans that has defined the dialogue on race in America and so, for many people, instances where the oppressor has African features are difficult to compute. Consequently, obvious anti-Asian racism amongst elements in the black community is dismissed for a variety of reasons - sometimes even by Asian-Americans themselves.

A common refrain is that these apparent race crimes against Asians are an unwelcome but natural consequence of economic hardship and poverty. Others suggest that the experience of racism itself leads to acts of racism. Still others will dismiss black on Asian racism on the grounds that overall African-Americans experience more oppression (both past and present) than anyone ever and are therefore excused by some unspecified logical mechanism from practising tolerance. Then there are some who assert that black on Asian violence is justified because Asians are racist.

The problem is that much white racism is fuelled by a sense of disenfranchisement resulting from poverty. Many recruits to white supremacist groups come from poor working class backgrounds. Would anyone dare to justify white racism on these grounds? Maybe we can accept that poor black students at South Philly have few hopes for a bright future and are thus able to understand (somewhat) their aggression, but what of the staff and District - what's their excuse? College educated and paid a decent salary (and in the case of the District, paid handsomely), these people should know better. You would have to do some amazing logical backflips to tie economic hardship into their racism. Furthermore, how much racism and oppression is required before your own qualifies as justifiable? Of course, if Asian racism justifies black racism then surely Asian racism is justified because there is black racism? The mind boggles.

Of course, as many Asian-Americans might agree, the issue of racial harassment of Asian children in American schools goes way beyond the ghetto and is one of the phenomena that unites all of us in a common experience. The degree may vary from racial baiting to violence, yet the intent is clear. The marginalization process for many Asian-Americans begins in school and as an experience it is perhaps the most overlooked amongst the Asian minority - the result of which is an apparent dearth of pro-active advocacy. Yet as the Asian student activists at South Philly have learned, it is by standing up and fighting back, that you gain allies. By doing this, they have empowered other black students to stand with them and hopefully improve conditions for everyone. The natural by-product of pro-active advocacy is that others become empowered to not go along with your oppression.

This is an important point because I maintain that anti-Asian racism is propagated not by extremism but by apathy and indifference. As the extreme (yet, apparently not uncommon) example of South Philly demonstrates, racism against Asians is fuelled by a willingness of others to "go along" with it, either by inaction or by dismissal of the significance of racist attitudes. Asians are harassed in the culture of the mainstream and this serves as the model of behaviour towards us. How then can harassment of Asian students in South Philly be condemned without condemning mainstream culture? It is this harassment model of behaviour as put forward by American culture that allows people to go along with anti-Asian bias up to and sometimes including the point of violence. It's no coincidence that harassment precedes anti-Asian violence in American schools.

On a final note it is important to highlight this.......

"Justice Department officials signaled that the agreement with the School District of Philadelphia, which............will serve as a nationwide standard for school systems trying to prevent bullying." 

The measures against bullying that the District is being required to take will serve as the nationwide standard. To me, this is our cue. As a community we have to set the standard for what we allow as acceptable behaviour towards our children in American schools. This is our opportunity.

Be Like Water

Recapturing The Heart Of The Tiger.

As readers will know, this past month saw what would have been the 70th birthday of Chinese icon, Bruce Lee. Few Asians in the modern era have had such a profound influence over the consciousness of popular western culture as Bruce. To pay tribute, I present this interesting exerpt from an interview he gave in the early 1970's...........





Although he is remembered for his skill as a martial artist, and appreciated by Asian-American men for being one of the few images of masculinity for their demographic, as the video suggests, his value to the consciousness of Asian men goes beyond his onscreen personna. Clearly, even from this short clip we can see that Lee's greatness as an athlete and martial artist was grounded in a profound philosophical foundation that saw self-discovery as a means to access an existential truth and recognized the flow of self-expression as the natural product of this process.

Maybe because he experienced the frustration of being stifled by the prejudice he encountered whilst trying to break into the American film industry (in much the same way many Asian-American men today feel stifled by stereotypes and exclusion), much of what he says in this interview is very pertinent to the way we can understand our experiences as Asian men. Here İ've presented some of the quotes from this clip that İ believe have some insights for Asian-American men......

               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

".....styles separate man, becomes doctrines/gospel truth - cultures separate man.....

....do not have [a] style, here I am as a human being - how can I express myself totally and completely, that way you won't create a style......[it is] a process of continuing growth.....

...[be like water because] running water never grows stale [it] keep on flowing - honestly expressing yourself...

....[it is] easy to put on a show  - flooded with a cocky feeling - and feel cool.....[but just like] if you learn to speak Chinese it's easy to speak the words but what lies behind the words - what brought on the feelings and expressions behind those words?..."

           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 It has become somewhat axiomatic for minorities to say that "going back to your roots" or rediscovering your culture can be a dramatic experience of catharsis that empowers the individual and offers an alternative world view to the white-washed perspective. Whilst I see the value of this, it has to be recognized that racism goes beyond cultural white-washing and anti-pluralism, and is fundamentally an assertion of a racial hierarchy that utilizes vaious methods to dehumanize minorities.

In fact, as I noted here, various Asian cultural practices are greedily and more readily accepted than are Asians themselves, which suggests that cultures can be and often are more easily integrated and accepted than races. What this suggests to me is that any kind of Asian-American consciousness must have as a fundamental premise the idea of reconnecting with the essence of what makes us human as opposed to cultural characteristics that defines us as particular ethnicities.

Nowhere is this concept more applicable than in the issue of reclaiming Asian masculinity. Many commentators suggest that balancing dehumanizing cultural portrayals and attitudes with more masculine versions is an essential step (perhaps the most essential step)  in correcting emasculation issues. This idea suggests that masculınity is fundamentally a product of culture and that it is cultural expression that drives the qualities of masculinity. I disagree with this - masculinity is far more fundamental than the mere cultural expression of it because ultimately the qualities that we describe as "masculine" seem most likely to be a product of various biological drives. We could call this biological drive the masculine essence, in the sense that the qualities that derive from it are fundamental to the nature of being biologically male.

Whilst this doesn't downplay the importance of sympathetic media representation as a means to defuse xenophobic and racist attitudes or the value of cultural connection, it does put into question the idea that emasculation can be remedied by these means. If we take Lee's ideas to their natural conclusion we should realize that culture - whether it be inclusive or not - reflects a fundamental tension between that which is instinctual and natural on the one hand and the need to define, describe and ultimately limit those instincts. That may sound like a dubious notion, yet as Asian men in America it's impossible to deny that we live in a culture that seeks to separate us from our masculinity, that is, whatever the things that might be instinctual and natural to us as men.

The kicker is that this is one of the purposes of any culture (including our cultures of origin) - to reign in those things that are natural and instinctual in order to render them relatively harmless and to shape them into something that doesn't threaten the social order. Having media stereotypes that represent us, as well as a grounding in our cultural roots may serve some purpose, yet we have to realize that ultimately all this means is someone else that we probably don't know - or worse, someone who cannot know us - is defining the limits of our identity.

So what all of this means to me is that discovering a masculine identity must involve a process of peeling away the filters of culture that limit and shape our nature. This might involve developing a philosophical foundation driven by the principle of inquiry and the desire for truth. In this video Lee illustrates the weakness of looking to media stereotypes to inform our characters, and the way that cultures (all cultures) can limit inquiry and stifle self-expression. So in some ways it is the striving to release the flow of self-expression that forms the basis for masculinity. Viewed in this way, the notion of masculinity transcends cultural boundaries and moves beyond the principle that identity and masculinity can, or should, be fundamentally culture specific.

All of this suggests that the assertion of an Asian masculine identity is primarily a counter-cultural endeavour. The seeds and roots of this masculine archetype must be firmly planted in the soil of oppositional thinking to all of the assumptions and expectations that are made and required of us by mainstream America and by our own cultures. Bruce Lee, the philosopher, seems to suggest that it is by moving outside of cultural paradigms that a more profound and fundamental truth about who we are can be attained.

Screw All Of You Guys....I'm Going Home

The Cartman Principle.

Life can be funny sometimes.

For various reasons many Asian-Americans will cringe when being called a "model minority". Chief amongst those reasons is the notion that supposed Asian-American academic achievement and economic success are often held up by some white commentators as the model for other minorities of colour to imitate in order to pull themselves out of poverty. Many minorities (Asians and non-Asians alike) view this as a strategy for excusing white discriminatory practices and placing responsibility firmly on the shoulders of minorities themselves for whatever backward social conditions they might face. The general principle is that if Asians can succeed, then why can't other minorities do the same? Many minority commentators point to this idea as being divisive and has set minorities groups against one another, increasing suspicion and mutual hostility.

Yet, as this article proves, white people should be careful what they wish for. Here's an excerpt............

In Silicon Valley, two high schools with outstanding academic reputations are losing white students as Asian students move in. Why?.........Whites aren't quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.....The white exodus clearly involves race-based presumptions, not all of which are positive. One example: Asian parents are too competitive. "My sense is that at Monta Vista you're competing against the child beside you," [parent, Ms. Doherty] says...........At Cupertino's top schools, administrators, parents and students say white students end up in the stereotyped role often applied to other minority groups: the underachievers.

As you may have read, many white people are refusing to play their own game and are leaving - taking their marbles home with them.

No doubt, the model minority stereotype will lose its appeal for white commentators and will quietly disappear from the dialogue.

Foot-Binding Ain't So Bad

The Case For a More Nuanced Dialogue.

Few would argue that the now abolished Chinese cultural practice of the foot-binding of Chinese women has been the subject of much debate amongst the men and women (but mainly the women) of the Asian minority of America. Although a phenomenon existing exclusively within Chinese culture, some Asian-American women find value in representing the practice as the essence of female oppression in Asia (and by extension within the Asian-Amerian community). Subsequently, the burden of correcting the historical wrongdoings of the culture of foot-binding falls on "Asian men" in general. Apparently Indian, Uzbek, Siberian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino, as well as Chinese and all other Asian men - all must equally share the responsibility for the phenomenon of foot-binding - even though ultimately it took the willpower of strong Asian men to end the practice.

Foot-binding was a practice in which Chinese girls as young as 3 or 4 underwent an extremely painful process to modify the shape and size of the foot. In order to achieve this, the bones of young girls' feet were broken and bandaged in whatever was the desired shape. Foot-bound women lived in constant pain, and infections were a frequent complication. Definitely an ugly practice. Yet, what were the circumstances that brought about this practice? Most accounts maintain that the phenomenon started as a fashion statement amongst the rich and well-to-do of the Tang Dynasty and slowly evolved into a tradition that involved every echelon of Chinese society.

Women who had their feet bound were highly prized in feudal China - their value as wives were increased and for many it was a means to escape poverty. Asthetically, bound feet were considered sexually attractive, and those who had undergone the procedure were widely considered to be chaste. Although it is maintained that foot-binding was a means to  keep women disempowered, on the flip side, mutilating the feet of Chinese women effectively increased their value and thus was a practice that was propagated by the men and women of feudal China.

Ironically, the American practice of modifying the body through cosmetic surgery, bears some remarkable similarities to the Chinese tradition. As was the case with women's feet in feudal China, women in modern America aspire to a standard body shape and type that is extremely difficult or impossible to maintain by natural means, and which is a standard determlned by a patriarchy and not the women themselves. In order to do this some women are pro-active and seek out invasive surgery to meet the required standard. Other women in America simply become sick - that is, they develope eating disorders from attempts at body sculpting through extreme dieting and vomiting. Those women who achieve the desired body shape through mutilation (a.k.a cosmetic surgery), become highly valued and desirable.

Clearly the underlying principles that drove the Chinese tradition of foot-binding and continue to drive the modern American culture of cosmetic mutilation are almost exactly the same. Strangely, yet not unsurprisingly, some Asian-American feminism seems to somehow not notice this fact, and continue with the "Asian men are foot-binding mysogynists" battle cry, seeming to be intellectually stuck in feudal China. Apparently, for some Asian-American feminists a traditiıon not practised by the majority of Asian cultures and one that has been abolished for decades, is more of a threat to their empowerment than an American patriarchy that is powerful enough to pressure millions of women to undergo cosmetic surgery. Somehow, Asian women seem fortunate enough to be unaffected by this American culture of control over women's body image, yet remarkably enslaved to an abolished culture of foot-binding that, incidentally, was never practised by the communities that they grew up in within the United States. This reminds very much of the type of disconnect that I noted here. I look on bemused.

The more I notice this similarity between foot-binding and cosmetic surgery, the more difficult it becomes to view the former as an inherently wicked practice without viewing the latter in the same light. Strange as it sounds, the fundamental difference between the two traditions is the availability of aneasthesia, anti-biotics, and painkillers. Unfortunately, what this means for those too lazy to make nuanced and balanced arguments against the practice, is that foot-binding would be no different and no less brutal that routine cosmetic surgery if practised in the present. Wheelchairs, Segways and escalators make the immobility issue a non-issue, painkillers and aneasthesia make the procedure painless. Modern surgical techniques might even make the practice easier and painless.

With this in mind, it is clear that if I am to be held responsible for a practice that has been abolished for decades, and which was never practised within my own Asian culture, then Asian feminists have to come up with better arguments for their case against me. Otherwise, it becomes extremely difficult to take this type of feminism seriously.

Sadly, as with much of the intellectual discourse that occurs within Asian America, the issue is often overly generalized to the point of becoming simplistic. Often this process goes hand-in-hand with a selective ommission of historical and social realities and an uncritical lack of nuance in the argumentation. Since foot-binding wasn't practised outside of China and never occurred amongst any Asian minority group in America (including the Chinese), it strikes me as strange in the extreme that this phenomenon could cause so much resentment toward the general Asian-American male population and serve as something of the rallying cry for the empowerment of Asian-American women. So how is it that some of the voices of Asian feminism rail vehemently against a practice that was not a Pan-Asian phenomenon and has been abolished for decades, yet few rail against the modern day manipulation of women into undergoing cosmetic surgery?

Hat Tip...

The Asian-American Gender Gap

The Separation of Asian Men and Women.

As readers might agree, the so-called "gender-gap" phenomenon of the Asian minority is one of the most talked about, read, and discussed subjects anywhere there is a gathering of two or more Asians. A complex matter, the gender-gap is something of an umbrella term used to describe several different states of affairs and phenomena that when taken as a whole, could be seen as indicative of a fundamental difference in the way that Asian-American men and women conceive of, and experience, the Asian-American experience.

Hyper-sexualization of Asian women and emasculation of Asian men, interracial dating disparities, the Asian Patriarchy and its misogyny, perceived sympathetic media depictions of Asian women compared to derogatory stereotypes of Asian men, plus various literary and artistic works by Asian women that are perceived by many to paint Asian men and culture in an unfair manner might be considered some of the more important or contentious issues that generally come up for discussion. All of this together is what constitutes the "gender-gap". Although not complete, I believe that the above list covers the most contentious topics of debate on this subject.

It is generally accepted that this concept of an Asian-American gender divide has its roots in the literary world of 1970's in the controversies surrounding the work of Maxine Hong Kingston and, later with the work of Amy Tan. Although the conflict of literary sensibilities between Kingston and Frank Chin in the 1970's formed the basis for the modern debate, I believe that it is Amy Tan's The Joy Luck Club that has set the tone for the debate in the last twenty years and served as the catalyst that shifted the debate beyond the literary to the wider community.

That being said, I would argue that the gender-gap, far from being a late 20th century phenomenon that reflects a misogynistic reaction to Asian feminist empowerment stems, in fact, from oppressive laws that targeted the Asian minority, making the gender division one of the factors that defines the Asian-American experience as unique and different from that of America's other minorities. What this means is that the gender division - or the separating of Asian men from women - must be seen as one of the most potent mechanisms of dis-empowerment for the Asian minority and has been in place almost since the beginning of Asian immigration to America. . 

History shows that almost from the beginning, Asian minority communities in America were prevented from flourishing in several ways; immigration controls, anti-miscegenation legislation, denial of property and citizenship rights, limitations on employment and employment discrimination, discrimination in housing, as well as the pervasive threat of personal violence. For the predominantly male Asian minorities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, strict immigration laws meant that any hope of having an Asian spouse was next to impossible - even men who already had wives in Asia were denied the right to be joined by them. Furthermore, immigration laws that although not explicit in the intent, served to restrict the immigration of Asian women specifically into America. Effectively, this is the beginning of the separation of Asian men and women, the goal of which was explicitly to contain and limit the Asian minority and prevent its population from growing.

The second major event that shaped the gender-divide was the phenomenon of the Asian War Brides of the Second World War. In a dramatic reversal of restrictive immigration policies that targeted Asian women, the War Brides Act permitted tens of thousands of Asian women (some estimate that there were up to 100,000) to be admitted to the country as the spouses of American G.I's. Even though a number of these Asian brides were espoused to black or Asian-American G.I's, the vast majority were admitted as the wives of white Americans.  Strangely, what this meant is that (for a brief period) it became easier for an Asian woman to enter the U.S if she was married to a white man, than it would have been if she was married to an Asian immigrant to America. In other words this meant that it was legally easier for a female Asian immigrant to be married to a white American than to an Asian man - Asian women became acceptable mainly if they were partnered with white men.

Clearly, the so-called gender-divide precedes by decades the issues raised by the literary conflicts of the 1970's and 80's and was initiated as a means of social engineering. Those in power controlled the number of marriages between Asian men and women plus the availability of Asian women to Asian men through strict immigration legislation, and ultimately the roles that Asian women would take once they were permitted to enter the country.

In a historical sense, the Asian War Brides phenomenon marks the point where the history and experiences of the Asian minority that existed prior to it, starts to be whitewashed out of history and starts to be replaced by myths of Asian women needing and wanting to be rescued by western men. Put another way, the Asian-American experience becomes feminized in the sense that the apparent benefits conferred on Asian women by virtue of their marriages to white men comes to define and dominate the historical and literary dialogue of the Asian minority and the mainstream alike. The struggles and hardships experienced by the Asian men and women that went before takes a back seat and are largely forgotten, at least in the popular view, simply because it is too uncomfortable to address. Thus, since the 1950's, the Asian-American story has been reworked as the "Asian woman/white man story" or some variation or derivative thereof with Asian men largely excluded from their own history.

So, far from being a natural cultural evolution within the Asian minority, the gender gap must really be viewed as a reflection of  a fundamental difference in historical perspectives stemming from laws that deliberately and unnaturally kept Asian men and women apart. These differences are so profound that it would be most accurate to say that the outlook of the Asian minority consists of two vastly different and perhaps irreconcilable historical points of view - that of the pre-war predominantly male Asian minority whose stories of struggle against oppression are largely absent from mainstream consciousness, and that of the post-war Asian War Brides whose experiences are ostensibly disconnected from the experiences of those that came before, yet whose story evolved into the acceptable version of Asian-American history.

This Is a Consular Advisory!

Suicide Bombers and Business As Usual.

Anyone that has had the opportunity to live in a foreign country might agree that often the experiences one has can change one's outlook on life and alter their perceptions of ideas and notions that they might have previously taken for granted. I count myself fortunate to have had the chance to live in several places outside of America where the things that might have seemed so important to me whilst there were somehow given a new perspective when viewed through the filter of a different culture.

The country where I currently reside is especially remarkable in this regard. A country that considers itself to have drawn culturally from both east and west it is a nation of contradiction. Boasting a strong secular tradition, the country also has an equally strong religious vein that is apparent everywhere one looks. Hundreds of minarets rise up everywhere along the horizon, calling the faithful to their religious duties five times a day. Most amazing and interesting are the people themselves. Walk along any thoroughfare of the city where I live and you will be struck by the almost surreal juxtaposition of cultures that coexist and interact with very little effort.

It is common to see families out for their Sunday stroll with their twenty-something daughter dressed in a short skirt and tight blouse walking along arm-in-arm with her mother who will be wearing the khimar. Further along the street you might encounter a dreadlocked or punked-out musician type offering to help an old lady climb some stairs. Walk through any neighbourhood and one might hear traditional music coming from one building whilst across the street the sounds of angry rock blare out in response. Extremely passionate, the people here take their politics and social issues seriously. Public demonstrations are common and heartfelt. On any given weekend walking through the central squares of the city, demonstrators calling for more anarchy, socialism, religion, political autonomy or gay rights will be out making their voices heard.

Whilst in normal circumstances this city is nowhere near as dangerous as most large American cities, there are some security issues here that most American ex-pats here are aware of. This was brought home to me this past weekend when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives in one of the city's central squares, which typically has a prominent police presence, in an attempt to kill as many of them as he could. Fortunately, no-one was killed although dozens were seriously wounded. In the four or so years that I've been here, there have been several bombings around the city, but most of the time these attacks occur well away from the central part of the city where I live and none of them have involved suicide bombers, so this incident is somewhat unique and close to home - my apartment is a five-minute walk from the place where it happened. 

It is at times like this that the American consulate here will send out e-mails to any ex-pats on its e-mail list warning them to be on high alert and advising on the types of places to avoid. These advisories are generally issued any time that their are heightened political tensions in the region that might lead to personal danger to Americans living overseas and are not always sent as a response to an actual attack. For instance, occasionally there might be a surge in hostile sentiment during which entire neighbourhoods will put up angry posters in their windows and drape damning banners over the street. Of course this can sometimes be accompanied by political and media rhetoric that fuels the resentment. Naturally, this can be a time of great anxiety, although in true local fashion, there is usually no display of personal animosity, with people even going out of their way to let you know that there is nothing personal about the sentiments! Still it helps to be a little wary!

Oddly, this sense of anxiety and foreboding are familiar to myself and perhaps even to many others living in America who are of Asian descent. American communities expressing and acting on resentment and hostility towards Asians that is fuelled by media and political rhetoric accurately describes the experience of the Asian minority. If occurring in the country where I currently reside, America labels this type of social intimidation as nationalism or radicalism, with it being clearly recognized that such attitudes can foster acts of violence against the targeted group. This is similar to America where the media routinely presents dehumanizing stereotypes of Asians, politicians foster xenophobia to win votes (as illustrated very recently in political ads for the mid-terms), and violence towards Asians is trivialized, there is a social acceptance and even encouragement of racist behaviour toward Asians. As I outlined here such attitudes are promoted as a method of social engineering that promotes a racial hierarchy seeking to place limitations on the Asian minority.

Clearly, there is very little difference between radical or nationalist promoted hostility in the foreign country where I reside, and media and politically motivated anti-Asianism in  my very own country, America. The effects on the target community are the same in both places; the mainstream are empowered to express their hostility with demeaning behaviour or violence, the target community experiences anxiety and a sense of danger from their neighbours. In extreme cases, it is this type of environmnent that fosters terrorism, the definition and purpose of which is to limit and intimidate a target population. Negative stereotyping and xenophobic rhetoric normalizes and promotes denigrating behaviour toward the Asian minority and models an attitude of exclusion from the mainstream. Of course, anti-Asian media rhetoric in America might not encourage a suicide bomber attack on Chinatown, but it certainly might lead to harrassment of, and violence toward Asian small business owners or schoolchildren for example, not to mention random acts of violence carried out as Asian-Americans try to go about their daily lives.

So, it is with a touch of sadness that I recognize that my dignity and safety as an American are given more credence when I live outside of the country, than when I reside within it. Living as an American ex-pat overseas, my country will do what it can to ensure my safety, as an American-Asian living in my own country, my dignity and safety are flouted. So, kudos to the Consulate for respecting my dignity and safety, now if only the rest of America would follow suit.

"My Mom Is A Fucking Bitch."

Discovering The Elephant in the Room With Amy Tan.

As readers may know, The Joy Luck Club is possibly the most popular and widely read novel written by an Asian-American author. Although loved by the mainstream, the book is either adored or reviled by Asian-Americans and since its publication a degree of contention has surrounded the novel. Some critics (such as Frank Chin) lambast the book for perpetuating stereotypes and many Asian men complain that the novel depicts Asian men unfairly. Like it or hate it, The Joy Luck Club is the work that many point to as representative of the vast difference between the experiences of Asian-American men and women. Although first published over twenty years ago, the subsequent "controversy" over the book's content seems to have set the tone for much of the inter-gender dialogue within the Asian minority in the two decades since.

There is very little doubt that out of all the ways that the Asian minority seems dis-united, the divide between Asian-American men and women is the most widely discussed and contentious. For some (perhaps many) The Joy Luck Club is the book that made it fashionable for Asian women to be outspoken about their disdain for Asian men and perhaps even made this rejection a necessity in the process of Asian-American feminist empowerment. For me then, there is no question that The Joy Luck Club could be considered to be something of a watershed in the Asian minority experience and particularly in the manner in which the genders interact.

Despite the apparent gravity of the anger and frustration that the book has elicited, I do,  nevertheless, find that it can offer us some intriguing insights into the experiences of the Asian minority. Moving beyond these ideas of inter-gender conflict, the novel is fascinating to me for the sole reason that it simply ignores any kind of Asian-American (or even simply American) historical context.

The American part of the story takes place mainly between the 1950's and 70's, which as readers might know was an extremely turbulent period in American history. It was during this period that America, amongst other things, went from practising apartheid to promoting civil rights, engaged in a highly divisive war in SE Asia, put several men into space, developed the H-bomb, created youth culture, experienced several inner-city race riots, empowered women and gays, and saw the rise of an open drug culture. This is not to mention the social effects of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear holocaust that hung over almost every aspect of western creative expression of the period. Apparently, the young Americanized Asian women that the novel describes were somehow unaware of any of these dramatic and world-view building shifts in the culture to which they belonged.

The effect is surreal since despite growing up in a period that could be described as volatile and dynamic, the Americanized characters in the book seemed to have missed the entire experience. Imagine if we had the story of Dr. Zhivago but with characters that are unaffected by the turbulent Russian Revolution. What we would be left with is a sappy love story with one-dimensional and self-absorbed characters. From a purely Asian-American perspective the disconnect from historical context is even more remarkable. At this time anti-misegenation laws forbidding Asian men from marrying white women still existed in several states. Anti-Asian racism was still deeply entrenched in the laws and social context of the time. Racially biased immigration policies limiting Asian immigration were still in force, plus citizenship and property rights were only recently given to the Asian minority. Strangely, none of these factors that had defined the experiences of the Asian minority at the time make it into the consciousness of the characters in the book.

Of course it can be argued that the story describes a universal human condition in a way that goes beyond race and racist restrictions, yet this seems inadequate since the human condition is very much informed by its social  environment. In fact, the story might possibly have been more powerful and universal if the complexities of the Asian-American experience of the time had been referenced in some way. A good example of this in action is the movie "Precious" - set against the backdrop of African-American poverty, the movie describes personal human tragedy that interweaves effortlessly with the historical and social context. Compared to this, the Joy Luck Club seems soap opera-ish.

It is for these reasons that I've always found the Americanized daughters described by Tan to be extremely annoying. Their apparent self-absorption is so profound that they don't seem to realize that the success they achieve in America was built upon the struggle against oppression of those who came before. They seem oblivious to the fact that their ability to effortlessly make dating and marriage choices across the racial divide was a right paid for with the blood of thousands, and that even at the time that the events were being described was a right denied to ethnic minority men and women in many states. Effectively, the Americanized characters described by Tan seem so disconnected from the social and historical realities of their time that they can only be described as borderline sociopathic.

This for me is the ultimate legacy of The Joy Luck Club. If we move beyond the bickering of the interracial dating disparity and view the novel objectively, it should become apparent that the book sets a mode of consciousness for ensuing generations of Asian-Americans that is mundane, socially disconnected and heavily biased toward emotionalism. By definition these qualities are dependent, irrelevent and ultimately favour the irrational adherence to disadvantage that drives the emotional appeal. Fundamentally, this type of approach is impotent for both Asian men and women and directs the dialogue of the Asian experience away from rational discourse that is based upon logical assements. If we ignore the very circumstances that create our world-view, then all we have left is emotive irrelevence.

I would argue that much of the creative, political and sociological commentary of the Asian minority follows this example of the appeal to emotion. The principles of rational argumentation and intellectual honesty take a back-seat to emotional necessity. I would suggest that The Joy Luck Club stands as the leading model for this mode of thinking that continues to the present. As a community that still struggles to define itself the reliance on emotionalism is ultimately detrimental to this cause. So in the end, the thinking espoused by The Joy Luck Club can only be viewed as a literary and intellectual dead-end that promotes short-term emotional expression but that has ultimately failed to inspire a rational, intellectually honest world-view.

A Herd Of Cats

Overcoming Stereotypes.

Here in Asian-America much is discussed about the notion of overcoming stereotypes and for many (possibly most) people from the Asian minority the effect of being stereotyped is something that they encounter on a daily basis. Often these experiences might involve the mundane, but sometimes stereotyping can result in violence and even murder. So the issue of stereotyping is complex and covers a wide range of experiences ranging from irritating to fatal. I think it would be accurate to say that the process of stereotyping has a dehumanizing effect and by propagating the social acceptance of demeaning behaviour towards the Asian minority it upholds the structure of social marginalization and personal disempowerment.

America is known throughout much of the world for its commitment to freedom and the cause of individual attainment. Vague and often elusive, the notion of freedom can be and often is interpreted by different people to mean different things. The notion of freedom has been understood to comprise a negative and positive aspect (as examined by Isaiah Berlin). In simple terms, the negative aspect of freedom holds that there be few external restrictions from others within one's society (be it from other citizens or government and generally accepted to come in the form of society's laws) that interfere with one doing as one pleases - limited of course by laws that protect the common good. Positive freedom is more of an internal concept that involves the idea of individuals transcending personal limitations - which can often be in the form of social, cultural or even self created limitations - and achieving one's full potential as an individual.

If we look at stereotyping through the filter of negative and positive freedom we might notice that the process of stereotyping creates an environment that allows mainstream society to restrict our ability to enjoy freedom as completely as other Americans. Political propagation of mistrust of Asia plus social willingness to accept - as normal - behaviour that denigrates Asian peoples and trivializes violence against them (as popularized by the media) all serves to diminish our capacity to live our lives free from pervasive random acts of prejudice and nurtured ignorance.

So, even though we won't find any laws that explicitly deny the Asian minority its freedom, in practice social attitudes are promoted that allow and perhaps even encourage interference in our lives. This means that whilst institutional racism towards Asians is ostensibly limited, the free market promotion of negative attitudes encourages prejudice as an expression of individual choice driven by social expectation and demand, which, put another way, means that institutional racism towards Asians has become privatized. In other words, whatever negative freedoms American democracy guarantees its citizens is diminished through sometimes severe social restrictions resulting from society's eager embrace of negative stereotyping and the subsequent effects this has on the Asian minority.

For most Asians what this means is that despite some degree of economic prosperity (which many people assert is the measure of a minority's integration and "success"), society's promotion of demeaning xenophobic attitudes and behaviours results in routine experiences of baiting, harassment and bigotry that often carries with it the potential for violence. This contradicts ideas of positive liberty as outlined by Isaiah Berlin............

".....we are not acted upon by external nature or by other men as if I were a thing, or an animal, or a slave incapable of playing a human role........I feel free to the degree that I believe this to be true, and enslaved to the degree that I am made to realize that it is not".                                                                                      

Two Concepts Of Liberty

In this sense stereotyping can be viewed as a process of social engineering carried out by cultural institutions and apparently driven by market demand. The goal is to reinforce ideas of a social hierarchy that excludes Asians (especially Asian men), and diminishes our humanity whilst simultaneously mainstreaming hostile behaviours towards us and effectively creating social barriers that promote personal limitations.

What all of this means is that the struggle to overcome stereotyping is first and foremost a personal and private endeavour that seeks liberty from imposition of limitations through the emancipation of the mind. It is individuals that have to emerge as role models and positive archetypes (but not necessarily via the media) for others within their own community. The individual has the choice to decide the power that attempts at social limitation and stereotypes will exert in their lives. This means no centralized notions of what constitutes a "good" or "bad" stereotype where the individual is informed from above on what best represents them. Rather, the process becomes one of individual inquiry that discovers its own limitations and thresholds and by so doing informs the community and society at large about who or what it is.

This is not to say that the work of protesting media stereotyping is without value, but to suggest that we shift our focus away from the sometimes superficial idea that stereotypes are an insult and turn our attention to the real tragedy which is that stereotypes place social limitations on individuals from our community. For instance, I don't like stereotypes such as Long Duk Dong but not because it has the potential to make me look bad. If non-Asians are stupid enough to put that on me, then it's my job to make sure they understand who I really am. What should truly make us angry about the existence of such depictions is that Asian men, individuals perhaps much like myself, have had and to a large extent still have social limitations placed upon them that restrict their opportunities to realize their full potential in whatever their chosen field might be.

"No-One Loves Me!"

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies.

I once attended a seminar that claimed to have the key to prosperity. The promise was simple - cultivate the habit of positive self-talk, and "manifest" prosperity by focused visualizations of one's goals and dreams. Simply, think good thoughts and the world will be your oyster! Eventually, the prosperity I visualized didn't match the prosperity I actually achieved, but I wouldn't say that I'm too disappointed. What I learned and what I came to believe is that what a person believes about theirself and the self-talk that comes from it can have profound consequences in their life. For Asian men, this idea is all-important.

As readers may agree, Asian men are somewhat invisible in this society - and that's at the best of times. When we aren't invisible, restrictions on positive Asian male images means that we're generally negatively represented by mainstream culture. Understandably, this is a cause of concern within the Asian community and for Asian men in particular the weight of this negativity is a heavy burden that, for some, seems to affect many aspects of their lives. It is media mis-representations that are charged with causing a sense of emasculation and disempowerment amongst Asian men. In addition to this, there are others who point to the media's defamation of Asian men as a major contributing factor in the supposed relegation of Asian men in the dating pool. In fact, it has become almost an acceptable standard to point at the media as causing the value of Asian men to decrease in the love market to such an extent that partnering an Asian man is tantamount to scraping the bottom of the barrel.There's little doubt that Asian men have their detractors (who doesn't?), and it's not really uncommon to hear or read various women opining on their negative attraction for Asian men. But is this representative of a general truth? Are Asian men at a disadvantage when it comes to love? I don't think so.

Despite personal testimonials that support the notion that Asian men may encounter negative responses based upon racial characteristics, this in no way proves that Asian men are generally at a disadvantage when it comes to finding partners. Yet, many seem to accept this as a common truth and there is no shortage of cultural reinforcement of this "truth" through online and offline media sources alike. Worst of all is the fact that some Asian men themselves seem to buy into this idea that they are at the bottom of the romance ladder. My own personal experiences, those of my friends, as well as casual observation of Asian men around me leads me to believe that reports of Asian men's undesirability are greatly exaggerated.

Suffice it to say that I never felt intimidated to approach an attractive girl and have also been pursued by attractive girls. I've seen this happen to other Asian guys too. So why doesn't my experience and the experiences of many of those I see around me not fit the stereotype of romantic losers? Is it that I'm simply "good-looking for an Asian guy"? Much as I would like this to be true, I don't think it offers a good explanation!

In  reality, as individuals Asian men are neither more nor less desirable than other men. The fact that so many Asian men seem to believe that this is not the case is a result of the ongoing cultural terrorist campaign being waged against us by society. The undesirable Asian male archetype is as much a caricature as is Long Duk Dong - it isn't real. It is a stereotype just like all the other negative stereotypes of Asian men, the goal of which is to uphold the fragile sexual ego of frightened white men. We don't accept the truth of these other stereotypes, yet we seem to accept the idea that we aren't desirable and internalize it, and therein lies the problem. If Asian men believe that they are going to fail in the world of romance, then that's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

In short, I simply don't believe that Asian men are doomed to failure when it comes to dating, and I especially don't believe that Asian are at a romantic disadvantage. Asian men need to give themselves a fighting chance of romantic success by first changing their mindset and everything else will follow from that.

Invasion of Privacy

The Sexual Harassment of Asian Men.

Shaming of others through mockery, taunting or any other method will always be ugly and will often carry with it painful consequences. The suicide last week of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi is a tragic reminder of this. As readers may know, his decision to commit suicide is alleged to be the result of a "prank" by his roommate and an accomplice that exposed Clementi's apparently hidden homosexuality in a live online broadcast of the boy engaging in a sexual encounter with another male student. No doubt, defendants Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei may have thought that shaming a young man about his sexuality would be a great laugh! Both students now face charges of invasion of privacy with some gay rights activists calling the incident a hate crime which, if proven, would carry with it a harsher sentence.

Sadly, Clementi was the target of the mean-spirited spite with which Asian men may be familiar. Sexual shaming of Asian men is now such a common phenomenon in American culture that sexual inadequacy has become the normal mode of reference for Asian men. Sexual myths about Asian men are broadcast so routinely by many major institutions of popular culture that they have become commonly accepted truths. From big-budget movie productions to home-made YouTube videos the personal and private particulars of Asian men's sexuality are the subject of much public discourse - often carried out with the apparent intent to humiliate.

This is why the incident and subsequent reactions to it are so fascinating. When public sexual humiliation is directed at Asian men society sees no problem with it. If society were consistent then it should find reason to be outraged at the pervasive sexual denigration of Asian men. Yet, as we all appreciate, this is not the case. Perhaps it could be argued that Asian men don't commit suicide as a result of cultural shaming. This may be true (or not - who knows?) but that line of argument also legitimizes social sexual shaming of homosexuality as long as it remains directed at the entire community and not at individuals. This would make homophobia acceptable as long as it isn't directed at any particular individual. As most would agree, this is incoherent and of course unacceptable.

As I've outlined before, Asian male sexuality is feared.  The sexual denigration of Asian men serves to uphold the myth of white male sexual prowess. This is why society is so heavily invested in this phenomenon - Asian male sexual empowerment is the final straw that will break the back of western patriarchal self-confidence hence the vehement propaganda war to prevent this occurring.

Edit: Minor Word Edits For Clarity.

A Whiter Shade of Yellow

Single White Female Syndrome.

It is always such a surreal experience when I find myself noticing the degree to which Asian cultures are adored in the West. If I turn on my television and watch an action movie I'm likely to see a white hero kicking the crap out of someone by utilizing Asian martial arts techniques. Some American action films have been influenced by the styles of Asian martial arts movie makers. Many restaurants in our hippest cities will be serving nouveau cuisine with a distinctly Asian influence. Plus there are minor yet pervasive Asian cultural traits and practices that have become integrated into western culture; karaoke, use of chopsticks, Asian fashions, Japanese innovations in comfortable and user friendly car interiors, and interior home designs are but a few.

Quite possibly the most important Asian influences in modern western cultures are Eastern religious practices and their accompanying terminologies which have become increasingly integrated into American spiritual practice. It has become commonplace to hear people talk about karma where they used to talk about punishment of sin, and reincarnation where they used to talk about being saved. Eastern style meditation and spiritual growth through self-realization are concepts that are profoundly integrated into the popular mentality. In fact, such is the appeal of Eastern spirituality that the Dalai Lama is one of the few Asian men (perhaps the only Asian man) in America that white people will watch and listen to without striving to replace him with a whitewashed version - although I hear that there may be plans afoot to make a movie about him with Zac Efron in the lead role.

Of course, the irony is that despite this adoration of "Asiatica" the actual Asians themselves remain somewhat in the cultural margins. This appropriation of Asian culture goes hand-in-hand with the restrictions placed upon postive images of Asian men, many of whom notice this bizarre state of affairs and liken it to not getting an invitation to their own party.

It's cool to be Asian - except when you actually are Asian.

"...the Chinese are extremely bright...and wonderful....!"

When Propaganda Succeeds.

Few subjects inflame the Asian-American community more than the issue of stereotypes in film and literature. In the view of Asian-Americans, stereotypes promote violence against Asians, serves to desensitize the mainstream to dehumanization of Asians, and trivializes our struggles with bigotry. One of the most well-known and, for some Asian-Americans, the most hated stereotype is the Charlie Chan character. The bigWOWO blog recently presented a podcast of Yunte Huang debating Frank Chin on the very subject of the Charlie Chan character and the stereotypes that went into the creation of this character. Here's the link to the podcast, and here's the link to the bigWOWO blog post, check it out - it's interesting.

The podcast was especially interesting because of the comments and attitudes of the (apparently) non-Asian callers to the show. Remarkably, despite the fact that many Asian-Americans perceive the Charlie Chan character to be negative, most (if not all) of the non-Asians that called in to the show felt that the character was a positive depiction of the Chinese people and their character. This raises some questions about what constitutes a "good" or "bad" depiction and even calls into question the notion that "positive" stereotypes can create a shift in social conditions of a given group.

The paradox of Charlie Chan is that despite being apparently adored by non-Asians and the reported sense of goodwill the character generated amongst mainstream fans, there was very little shift in attitudes towards Asians within American society. Anti-Asian prejudice and discrimination continued unabated for decades. So, if we accept that in the minds of Chan's non-Asian fans his depiction was positive for their perception of the Chinese, then the question arises; why didn't these warm fuzzy feelings amongst these fans lead to a discernible social improvement for Chinese-Americans?

The answer lies in the nature of the character itself. An accented Chinese immigrant, the character of Chan is set in a time in American history when it was almost illegal to be Asian. Chinese immigrants in this period experienced immense institutional and personal racism. Restrictions on citizenship, employment, inter-marriage with white women, and land ownership meant that Asian immigrants were forced to live and work in ghettos (aka "Chinatowns") where they couldn't contaminate the local white populace. Xenophobic hostility to Asians led to regular random acts of violence and harassment to such an extent that simply walking along the street became an act of immense courage that could end in violent death. This was the common experience of pre-war Asian immigrants.

What does this have to do with Charlie Chan? Well, absolutely nothing! And that's the point. As wise and clever as he is portrayed, the life of Charlie Chan would have been unrecognizable to the Chinese immigrants of the time. Denied rights and considered barely human, Chinese immigrants could have been killed for attempting to enter many white owned establishments which makes the notion of one of them being given jurisdiction over white criminals competely preposterous. Certainly there are situations where Charlie Chan encounters racism but he is always able to brush it aside with a Confucian quip.

That's why Chan is so beloved - he allows America to brush aside its history of brutality toward its Asian immigrants in a way that makes racism seem almost harmless. Chan is a proto model-minority - he doesn't need any help because he has all this wisdom and culture to draw upon and because he doesn't need help, there's no need to examine anti-Asian racism. Fortunately, this also means that the mainstream gets to deny that prejudice towards Asians can and has been so brutal, and it allows them to hide behind the propaganda that things aren't so bad for Asians because "they do so well" and they're "really smart!"

The biggest irony is that Charlie Chan's existence gives the mainstream an alternate view of themselves and not of the Chinese. This "positive" depiction did not contribute to social progressiveness because what he depicted wasn't real. That's why he was so popular - he allowed manistream America to believe that they hadn't acted like savages toward their Asian minorities.