Monday, December 29, 2008

Defining the word "Ambition"

The word "ambition" will often stir scorn or even fear in the minds of those who consider themselves too intellectual and too principles to possess this quality.

That is stupid.

The first order is to define ambition. By my calculations, there are four different, broad categories which fall under the general term "ambition," which I will herefrom cease putting in quotes.

The first is social ambition. In bald terms, this is the kind of social climbing often associated with people who often are financially ambitious, as well. However, social ambition is one that vies for and hungers for social prestige. Admiration from others. The ability to make others envious, which is different from jealous. Jealousy, in case this is unknown, is the fear that others are detracting from oneself. Envy is desiring what others have.

So social ambition often is accompanied by the desire to inspire envy in others. It is, briefly, achieving social position.

Then there is financial ambition. As stated above, this is often seen in conjunction with those who harbor social ambitions. However, financial ambition can be satisfied not only by marrying into it, which is often a way social ambition is achieved, but through one's employment. This in the popular consciousness is often associated with rapacious and unprincipled men and women in "Business" with a capital "B": people who hold MBA's and little else, who have no ethics and no principles and certainly no desire to advance society or their own communities. The sole concern is, stereotypically though not necessarily in reality, one's own pocketbook.

Then there is professional ambition. This may or may not result in financial success. But for those who do not hold (graduate) degrees in some specialty that does not end in "M.D." "J.D." or "M.B.A." pursuing one's professional interests and satisfying one's professional ambition may or may not result in financial success. Witness the average pay a professor receives: $60,000. That is less than people without even a Bachelor's degree who work for one of the Big Three Auto Companies under the $70/hr union contracts. And professors have a four year degree, plust another 6-8 years for their Master's and Ph.D., plus another few for completing their dissertation.

But I digress. Then there is intellectual ambition. That is obviously an ambition that is geared towards learning and increasing one's knowledge-base. It is often driven by a combination of curiosity, ethics, and a desire to improve the world around oneself.

The problem with people with graduate degrees that aren't M.D.'s (who are inevitably socially and fiscally conservative--the worst of Nimbyism), J.D.'s or MBA's is that they scorn people with the degrees just mentioned. People with MBA's are viewed as unprincipled, selfish, self-centered and rapacious. Like Bush and his ilk. M.D.'s are too conservative. And J.D.'s are viewed as overpaid hired guns. They can be bought and sold.

This is the wrong outlook. People are naturally ambitious. They want to improve their lot. Based on their principles. After all, do we really think that Obama is not ambitous? Of course he is. And he's a lawyer. The difference between him and Bush is that he has principles that include taking care of other people. Who are not exactly like him. Something that Conservatives just don't understand. He doesn't care if they aren't Black, he doesn't care if they aren't educated, and he certainly doesn't care if they voted for him. He still wants to take care of them as their President.

That's something that annoying intellectuals just don't understand. That they need to take responsibility for their ambition. Just because one doesn't desire to rape a small country of all its resources, including its labor force, does not mean one doesn't "have ambition." It merely means one doesn't have a particular kind of ambition, the kind that cares nothing for anyone else but oneself.

Ambition is not something that only people who work on Wall Street have. Activists have it. Professors have it. It is the principles and ethics one chooses to guide that ambition that matters. That is the crux of the issue. If one wants to be wealthy, that in itself is neither good nor bad. It is the way one achieves that wealth, and what one does with it that is the issue.

And it is not that desiring to attain social prestige, or even power in one's work is bad. It is how one acquires it and how one wields it that is at issue. I often hear people who consider themselves "above" having ambition aver that they want to be rich. They want to have the power to sway opinions about social issues they deem important. That is ambition. The question is, are you clear enough to achieve it? And that means can you take responsibility for having ambition, and wielding it in a socially responsible way?

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Taking a Walk With the Family on Christmas Day

I noticed something around the neighborhood as we left for a quick trip to the other side of town for dinner: adults taking a walk together.

I remember this was a frequent occurrence when I was young. Indeed, it seemed that Christmas, whether one celebrated the day or not, was one of the few days that one could see adults taking a walk together here in the U.S. Most of the time, people are too busy rushing towards their next destination--work, shopping, out somewhere--to take the time to walk with their relatives, let alone their partners. But Christmas, along with Thanksgiving, was a day that one saw this often.

Part of the reason was that all stores were closed except for liquor stores. There was always a moment of panic, "Oh, no, the stores are closing at
six in the evening on the wednesday before Thanksgiving!" and there would be a last mad rush to get the whipping cream or some more sugar.

And precisely because no consumerism could occur on the day of those holidays, there was an enforced quietude the following day. A day of rest. Calm. There seemed to be nothing
to do except eat, talk with one's relatives and perhaps watch some tv if one was so inclined. But the inability to shop had a great influence on the quietude that settled on the collective mind. And so, one would often see groups of adults, walking together. At a leisurely pace.

The enforced day of quietude. The day when adults alk together in the street because there is a collective acceptance that nothing else can bedone except spend time together. No distractions such as shopping. No going somewhere to avoid each other. Just being together. Americans don’t do enough of that.

It's been years in urban cities since Thanksgiving has shut down stores. Now if one forgets whipping cream, the local grocer is open for business. No need to visit the liquor store and pay an inordinate amount of money for disproportionately small amount of cream. And it's been years, as well, that New Year's shut stores down. Christmas was the last day that this enforced contemplativeness could be experienced.

Except for Armani A/X. Apparently they think that last minute shopping is something one can do on the day of gift-giving. The cynicism of this decision is so great that they really deserve no more thought.

But I not only say it is a shame that we can not at least have one day of quiet. I think that stores who promote that mindset are shameful.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Transferring Eudora, Firefox, Thunderbird and Netscape Settings/Mailboxes to New Computer

I scoured the web for directions on how to transfer Eudora and Thunderbird mailboxes, settings, filters, and also how to transfer Firefox and Netscape settings, bookmarks and passwords. Every set of directions was flawed, and each time I tried them, some things would be missing: mailboxes, or passwords, or bookmarks.

This is foolproof and idiot proof.

You need an external drive, either a physical one or a backup online. Do these simple steps. Works every time.

1) Copy the entire program from the program file onto the external drive. The entire folder, like Eudora.
2) Copy the entire Eudora folder in the application settings folder. It will look something like this:
C:\Documents and Settings\[your user name]\Application Data\Eudora in XP. In Vista, you will find the application settings folder under: [your user name]\appdata\roaming
3) This second folder will contain your profile, your mailboxes, passwords, filters and attachments.
4) Copy the program folder onto the new computer in the "program files" folder
5) Then go into the application data folder, and locate, the Eudora folder, and open it. Find the profiles folder and profile configuration setting document. Replace these with the old profile folder copied from the old computer.
6) The profile.ini configuration setting document may need adjustment. Open it with Notepad. Locate the line that has a file that resembles this: vtue7nve.default. The important part is the series of letters and numbers.
7) This has to match the default folder which is located in the old profile folder you just pasted into the Eudora profile folder in application settings. If it doesn't, then type in the correct name of the folder labeled "default."
8) You're done. Open up Eudora and you will have your mailboxes, filters and password all transferred.

This process works for Thunderbird, Firefox and Netscape, as well.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

New Ageists Undermine Legitimate Environmentalism

Environmentalism has become extremely trendy in the past decade. And while many scientists have spent years contributing to our storehouse of knowledge, their research and their credentials are severely undermined by New Ageists who claim that they know what is happening to "Mother Earth" better than all else.

What is their source? Their "feelings," their "connection" with the Earth with a capital "E" and their ability to be in tune with all things that are "earthy" unlike practically anyone else on the planet.

These people never have any credentials. It is shocking if they even hold a Bachelor's degree, and often that is in something that is completely unrelated to the rigorous sciences, something fluffy and often incomplete. They claim expertise in other, nebulous fields of "knowledge" such as "wholistic nutrition" or "Amazonian herbal expertise."

The problem with these people is severalfold. First, they over-identify with the Earth. Again, the point is not that the Earth should not be valued--indeed, there is much proof that humans undervalue the Earth and Americans in particular are seemingly incapable of exercising restraint in exploiting natural resources if their own gain is in the balance. Nevertheless, at issue is that New Agey people think themselves to be undervalued. They feel marginalized. Disrespected. They are convinced that if people only listened, they would see wisdom rather than mere charlatanism.

Conveniently, they share certain qualities with the Earth, which is also undervalued, often not "heard" and is too easily dismissed. Lo and behold! They are the same, these people think. And so they become the collective "voice" for Mother Earth, and begin adopting "native" monikers for both themselves and for various icons of Mother Earth. Though they mispronounce "Himalaya"--the accent is on the second, not third, syllable--they pride themselves on not calling Everest "Everest." They call themselves pseudo-Indian names, though they don't know what they mean. And occasionally, they subscribe to some gutted, white, milk-toast religion they claim is originally "Indian" since that, evidently, is the root of true spiritual authenticity.

Not much has changed from the Colonials of 18th century Britian. These people still view India for some strange reason as the center of white spiritual salvation, though their interpretation is actually a corrupt projection of their own value system. Indeed, it is the ultimate narcissistic gesture, the ultimate contemporary colonialism, though it is of course not seen as such.

Somehow, Mother Earth/Nature gets caught up in this cultural colonialist discourse.

It's a shame, really, because true, science-based environmentalism is the way to if not reverse, at least slow, the rapacious appetite of humans around the globe. Science will offer the technology and clear techniques to address the fundamental ills wrought by Western appetites. The last thing needed is a bunch of nitwits who know nothing, projecting their own needs and desires, onto the environmental cause.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Big Three Auto and Congress

it may be old news, but there are still some issues regarding the Republican Senate's refusal to help these three automakers.

1) The hypocrisy of being willing to help the financial world with $700 billion, which demanded absolutely no oversight in comparison with a paltry $14 billion is truly shameless and shocking

2) The demand by Republican Senators for concession from unions is somewhat justified because, after all, some of their workers get $80/hr. Most people with Ph.D.'s don't even get that. But here is the problem: the issue at stake was not that unions should "bend" and be more transparent for these Republicans. It was that these senators came from southern states who didn't have those automakers in their states, so they didn't care if tens of thousands of newly unemployed men and women might join the unemployed rolls. It wasn't happening in their backyard. It was the worst kind of Nimbyism combined with a not-so-subtle attempt to gut unions.

3) What happened to all the other news out ther? Like what's happening to other economies around the world as a result of Bush running our country into the ground? What is happening to state economies?

4) As for the automakers themselves, here is what I would like: stop being arrogant. Design cars that people want. If Honda and Toyota are more successful, don't you think there is a reason for it? Stop designing stupid cars with giant engines that get 14 miles to the gallon because in America, "bigger is badder and better." Stop being arrogant and offering what you want. Design what the people want: cars that are fuel efficient and sleekly designed. What is wrong with American designers designing bulky gas-guzzlers with dipping noses that supposedly connotes "sleek" in all American cars. Why does it appear as if American car makers always pick their industrial designers from the dregs of classes from ArtCenter while Honda and Toyota get their best and brightest?

5) In terms of layoffs, the automakers might consider beginning with laying off its management, since they are the incompetent people who have made these decisions that have led to your current crisis?

6) As for Senate Republicans, the hypocrisy of their decision to save the financial industry but not to save the auto industry at a mere fraction of the cost, is glaring and unconscionable. And the protest that what they want is "oversight" rather than that they merely wanted to gut the unions is equally repugnant.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Household Tips: Water Marks, Toilet "Snake" Marks, Frizzy Hair

1) Watermark Removal: If one scours the web for suggestions on how to eradicate water marks, many suggestions arise. Amongst them include mayonnaise (??) and other oil-based treatments. These do not work. The issue is that there is a thin layer of polish/wax, minimal though it is, that protects a wooden table's color from being easily removed. Yes, this is even in the case of those older tables.

What will remove a water mark is paste toothpaste. Trader Joe's provides an excellent choice, inexpensive--$2.99. It is also just a really good, low-chemical toothpaste that is a great-tasting alternative to Tom's of Maine toothpaste which is far more expensive.

Use a washcloth. Wet it lightly. Put a dab of toothpaste on the cloth. Then rub the watermark--circular or back and forth is not relevant. What is being removed is that thin top coating that protects the actual color of your table. Use another part of the washcloth, also lightly dampened, to wipe off the excess toothpaste.

Once the table is dry, polish your table as normal.

2) Toilet Bowl Scratches from a Plumbing Snake: Again, lots of useless suggestions on the web for removing them. They include chastising the person for scratching the bowl in the first place--akin to saying, "Why didn't you use your best judgment?"--and draining the bowl and painting it--ugh and again really useless. The only real solution is Barkeeper's Friend for about $2.99. It is a type of cleanser that you can get at your local hardware store rather than buying it online. Save the environment from all that packaging and keep your local shops in business while you're at it.

Do not mistake this for any kind of cleanser, such as Bon Ami or Comet, which have their uses. Barkeeper's Friend is not earth friendly like Bon Ami, but it is also the only cleaner that will work.

Again, opinions vary on the web regarding Barkeeper's Friend. Some say you need to scrub after letting it soak. Some say to combine it with bleach to create a really toxic blend. Neither of these are true. For a toilet that was covered in scratches from multiple snakes, this was all that was needed:

Shake the canister a few times. The water will be cloudy. Let soak for 15-30 mins, depending on how much of a clock-watcher you are. Flush.

The metal stains--which is what those scratches really are--will be gone.

3) Frizzy hair: There are a lot of solutions, including Bumble and Bumble, Frederic Fekkai olive oil glossing collection, and Sebastian Laminates. Or you can turn once more to Trader Joe's, who sells their own brand of Refresh Conditioner that smells vaguely like oranges. In itself, it is alright but doesn't help those with frizzy hair. However, add 1/4 cup of olive oil. You will need to pour some condition out initially in order to accommodate the olive oil. Shake well. The olive oil will stay suspended throughout the conditioner--no need to worry about separating.

The result? For $2.99, you get conditioner that smooths your hair, makes it shiny and healthy. Sure, if you want to spend $30-$50 on name brand products, you can. Or you can be smart. And maybe donate some of that money you saved to a better cause.

Monday, December 8, 2008

It's "Terrorism" Not "Terror"

It took the media how many years before they admitted that the Bush/Cheney axis duped them into believing that the Invasion of Iraq was based on falsities conjured by Cheney and his cohorts? Let's see, was that five long years?

And how much longer is it going to be before the media admits that they have again been the slaves and dupes of Bush, Cheney and the Bush administration? In what way? By thoughtlessly, mindlessly repeating the word "terror" when they mean either "terrorist" or "terrorism."

This is not an issue of grammar. It is an issue of the way the issue of terrorism and the war on it are framed.

If you accept that this is a "War on Terror," then you are accepting a set of terms which believes that "terror" is not an abstract concept but is somehow a concrete definition of a discrete set of conditions that is universal. It isn't. Aside from a definition that might come from the dictionary, Bush's intentional use of the word "terror" rather than "terrorism" is meant to strike terror in people's hearts.

And he's succeeded. Rather than examine the issue as one of terrorism, perpetrated by discrete groups, terror evokes a global sense of peril, that no matter where one is, one is unsafe. This is patently untrue.

After all, Al Qaeda did not send all that anthrax through the mail. That was domestic. Terrorism. Not "terror."

It is actually quite shameful the way that Bush has chosen to frame the subject in this way, to create fear-mongering and perpetuate a sense of imminent peril. Shameful. We have more to fear from what he has done to our economy. And the fact that we will continue to pay for these mistakes by the big businesses that supported him--think big auto and big oil.

Indeed, Bush was quite successful in making people fear for their lives four years ago, which is how he won the re-election. People felt unsafe, though it is clear that they had nothing to fear. Nothing has happened to the American people over the last four years on our soil that was not instigated by Big Business and the mentality of The Rules Don't Apply To Me.

So when is it that the media, including NPR shows like All Things Considered and PRI shows like The World, are going to demand that their reporters report accurately.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

The Correlation Between Bush and Aggressive Americans

The holiday season just seems to bring out the worst in people. Did you read about the poor man who was trampled to death in a Long Island, NY, Walmart? That's right. On Black Friday, people were just sooo anxious to spend as little money as possible that they lined up before 5 am, started getting antsy and angry and when the doors opened, they trampled an employee to death on their ways towards those all-important bargains in Electronics and whatever other useless items they don't need.

But that isn't the point. The point is that ever since Bush has instituted his policy of "The Rules Don't Apply To Me (or My Minions)", Americans of the less-intelligent, less-humanistic, less-inclined-to-care-about-anyone-else-in-the-first-place stripe have been taking their cues from him.

Case in point: at a Manhattan Beach, CA, Target, I espied an angry woman with a sheepish-looking husband in tow. In the passenger seat. As I walked to my car, I saw her on another aisle and a man who saw I was leaving decided to claim my soon-t0-be-vacant spot. He dutifully turned on his blinking lights and began the wait. I loaded my items and as I shut my trunk, I saw the angry woman driving up towards me. She saw me leaving and then turned on her light. I then saw the man who had been waiting point to her, himself and then my spot. Which triggered a spate of obscene gestures. He then pointed at her, himself and my spot. I added my two cents by nodding an ascent. She then decided to include me in the obscenities, but of course, as she passed, she didn't have the courage to actually look at me--she could only do this at a distance. Nor did she look at the man waiting for my spot.

And a year ago, I was actually run into a wall along PCH near Malibu because someone was impatient with me driving the speed limit. It was right out of some C-movie, this enormous truck of the type that people buy because they feel inadequate in other ways, was tailgating me. I was in the slow lane and at 9 at night, it wasn't like PCH was particularly crowded. Plenty of room and two other lanes for this person to drive in. But no. He decided it was better to flash his brights. At a stoplight, I figured, okay, now he'll finally move over. And he did. Once we started again, he decided that he wanted to teach me a lesson. He literally drove into my lane. Along a certain stretch, near Pacific Palisades, there is a retaining wall to keep the hill from turning into a mud river during rainy season. And there was just no place for me to go. So I jammed into the wall. I couldn't believe it. I was pregnant at the time, too. So that was particularly fun for me. When he realized what he'd done, of course he sped off and the police said there was nothing they could do. Of course not.

This aren't the only examples of aggression by people whom we are led to believe by the media are model citizens, i.e. they're white. In Cape Cod three years ago, I recall driving around the various towns and seeing stickers that said "Kill the French" simply because they think, rightly so, that our Imperialist Invasion of Iraq was wrong. I guess it's okay to kill, maim, or otherwise be aggressive towards anyone who disagrees with us. Must be nice to be Conservative and have such a simplistic, and yet terrorizing, view of the world.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

The Auto Industry's Woes

On the November 17, 2008 edition of The World, a story was heard on not only the future of foreign auto car makers, but what a Detroit lobbyist thought about the current woes of Chrysler, GM and Ford. The gist was that this lobbyist rejected the idea that the Big Three were out of touch with the American consumer. That the fact that over 40% of domestic car sales were for foreign-designed, but domestically produced cars was somehow not an indictment of American auto-makers' designs that emphasized gas-guzzling SUV's. The fact is, it isn't that American automakers are not making what American's want, but that somehow, Americans just want something different.

That would be the doublespeak they call a "distinction without a difference."

Because, frankly, the American automakers have not been serving their market. They have ignored the market, that thing that Big Business in America so often touts as the indicator and regulator extraordinaire.

But now that the Big Three have finally had to admit that they were not listening to the market, they don't want to take the consequences for their actions. In other words, these three, who would be so quick to sacrifice other businesses to failure don't want to take that responsibility themselves. Instead, they want a bailout.

It is clear how "Big Business" works: the rules of the "Market" apply to everyone else. But when we are failing, we want special treatment.

The Rafael Vinoly "Grant"

The premise of Rafael Vinoly’s research grant is to foster deeper understanding, one presumes, in the arenas of architecture, urbanism and material culture.

However, this premise seems to be a sham. This year’s competition explored the built environment of developing nations. The purpose was to understand and address problems inherent in countries like China, India, and presumably those in Africa. But China was the first area they specified as being interested in understanding.

So I submitted a proposal. It was a critique on the fact that Westerners, Americans and Europeans alike, assume that western designs in China, including the Nest, the Egg, CCTV Tower and the Cube, are representative of both the problems and the inadequate solutions for a unique Chinese urbanization.

The problem is that Chinese modernization supposedly victimizes the individual. It tears down “traditional” architecture like hutongs, which no one ever acknowledges are a uniquely Beijing typology.

Well, Beijing is not a stand-in for all of China. But it has become that.

As for Beijing “fatigue,” a phenomenon in which architects think they have fully explored Beijing, the problem is they haven’t explored it at all. What they have explored is themselves: Western architecture in Beijing. The editor in charge of Beijing at Architectural Record, for example, never actually explores Beijing. Instead, he helps people exoticize elements of Beijing that Westerners find interesting. Not coincidentally, these elements are the Western designs in Beijing named above.

But as for documenting the rest of Beijing, what Beijingers really experience, no, that’s not interesting. That does not reinforce assumptions westerners have about Beijing: that it dehumanizes people with its monument, that it is an out-of-control city developing with not regard for the people, and that Beijinger’s really miss their traditional architecture, which supposedly represents the pinnacle of Chinese architecture.

First, there are innumerable neighborhoods in Beijing of a human scale. No one ever bothers documenting those. And since Western architects can’t never speak the language when they go over there, how would they know what Beijingers feel about their city, anyway? Imagine if some Chinese person came over to the U.S. to study NY architecture, assuming it represented all of the U.S., and didn’t speak the language? Americans are so narrow-minded and gringoistic that they would immediately protest, “How can you study us without speaking American?” Yes, and the same goes for architectural tourists traveling in China who lament what’s going on without understanding the first thing about China. Like William Menking. The arrogance of his assumptions about China is mind-boggling: he knows nothing about it, doesn't speak the language, doesn't hold a degree in it, and has never visited there. But he sure is certain that the U.S. is superior, it doesn't trample people's human rights. Evidently, he has been out to lunch during this entire administration, doesn't understand how our prison system is racist, and knows absolutely nothing about institutionalized racism, sexism and classicism. But since he knows nothing of these problems in the U.S., it's alright to engage in architecture here.

Modernization is not defined by Western progress. It just isn’t. Other countries must necessarily define and determine their own trajectory towards a modernization that is uniquely their own. The West does not equal Modernization with a capital “M” but just typifies a modernization, one of many.

And the argument that “traditional” architecture represents the pinnacle of Chinese architectural innovation and that it should be saved? Well, as long as these people have access to other housing, do white Americans traveling as architectural tourists to Beijing know for a fact that they lament losing their housing? Have most of these hutongs actually been seen by superior Americans, or is that just a projected lament about our own inability to preserve our own monuments? Yes. That’s what these people do best: project.

Indeed, what is never specified is what elements of “traditional” architecture the hutongs represent that are so great. Never once is that specified. Instead, hutongs are used as an indictment of how the “Chinese government” is insensitive to the “people” and victimizes them. Of course, then when Americans begin talking about those “people” they begin talking about the ethnic minority, in a dizzying display of a lack of logic. These writers and architects don’t really care about the Han Chinese except as a symbol to indict the government. But as for actually understanding what these people want and need? No. That task is reserved for the ethnic minorities, the Tibetans and Uighurs are current favorite darlings of Westerners, but again, the discourse is “Isn’t the Chinese government awful?” The goal is never to truly understand but to reinforce the superiority of Americans and Western Europeans.

Finally, Rafael Vinoly grant doesn’t seem interested in people actually qualified to determine what is needed by Chinese people in order to propose architectural proposals that are not just projections. After all, in order to determine what is needed, one needs to speak the language. Have studied the history and culture so as not to exoticize. And have, finally, training in architecture. But one needs all those things. Speaking the language or living in China do not necessarily qualify one because again, one needs training in how to approach the problem.

In other words, one needs to know how to critically think. Something most architects lack. Critical thinking skills. They are too often seduced by surface. Which inevitably, always, culturally colonializes the Other.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Debunking the "Model Minority" Chinese-American Myth

There is a cohort of Chinese-Americans, of whom one suspects Amy Tan is one, who embrace the "Model Minority" mentality.

Here's how it goes:

We are Chinese-Americans in California. We have been oppressed since our relatives from the Toisan area of Southern China. Indeed, the racism and oppression was institutionalized by law that limited our status and our access. We are proud of being successful, law-abiding citizens whose ancestors hail from this very modest, indeed poor, area of Southern China, in Guangdong province. We like to wear "traditional" Chinese clothing to all events, drawing attention to our pride in our heritage. And we also try to make connections to each other wherever we can through last names.

1) We are Chinese-Americans who have been institutionally oppressed since our relatives came over from Toisan, Guangdong, China, in the 1800's.

That's true. Obviously. The issue is not merely about a singular oppression against Chinese Americans, however. In the rush to focus on "Chinese-American" issues, many of this particular generation of Chinese Americans ignore the larger issues of racism and bigotry that exist. Not in the naive sense that they don't know they exist or that something needs to be done about these issues. Rather, this particular cohort, who ranges from around their mid-50's and older, they tend to focus on how they are "special" and that this specialness has been ignored because there are so many other groups, such as Black-Americans and Latino-Americans, who have grabbed the spotlight of "We Are Most Oppressed by Whites" in this country.

Therefore, this cohort consistently draws attention to the institutionalized ways in which they were oppressed. Good. Fine.

How about thinking of ways to draw attention to themselves other than proclaiming that "We Are Oppressed, Too"? How about focusing on how to mobilize institutionalized agency and power? How about training Chinese-Americans, from wherever they originally hail, including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, to not be so narrow-minded as to think that, simply because they have a job as a Doctor or Attorney that they don't experience racism and oppression? That racism is an institutionalized phenomenon, not an individual one. That it is not something that happens to you as an individual, but as a member of a group. Therefore, even if you are personally not a victim now that this does not preclude that possibility in the future because you are part of that group. Moreover, it does not help combat the other, more vulnerable members of your group that you yourself are personally doing alright for now--by being passive and disengaging yourself from the larger discourse, you are aiding and abetting the continued marginalization of Chinese Americans?

How about teaching people that fact instead of just focusing on historical wrongs?

2) We are from Toisan, Guangdong Province, China, and we are proud of that fact, which makes us law-abiding.

Every time this is averred by some self-proclaimed member of this group, it makes one think of Shakespeare: Methinks he doth protest too much.

The issue is not that your relatives were from a very poor part of town in a poor part of the country at the time and that, wow, look at us now, we're successful! The issue is, what can you do to raise agency, not just individual success, but agency, of all Chinese Americans? Does drawing attention to your ancestors' humble beginnings, and the fact that you are a fourth-generation American do that? No. How about focusing instead on how Chinese Americans are too focused on individual success, to the detriment of the collective? How about shifting the focus to the collective? How about teaching the new generation about getting involved in the community, rather than pounding into their heads that they have to be doctors who, by the way, have absolutely no power in the community and change nothing for the status of Chinese Americans in the eyes of White America? Gee, what a concept!

As for law-abiding, again, that's good. But it's not good to be docile. And passive. And not willing to engage the larger community that is non-Chinese American. Until we get White American to listen, we will continue being the "pet" that is really what model minority means. Model Minority was a moniker coined by Euro-Americans to emasculate and ultimately to keep the Chinese Americans down--it's a verbal pat on the head. Don't wear it like it's a good thing.

3) We like to wear "Traditional" Clothing to every event.

Don't. Unless you enjoy exoticizing yourself and reinforcing that yes, those Chinese (and believe me, they don't think Chinese Americans, they only think "Chinese") are so traditional. Read: so marginal. So backwards. They do make lovely clothing, but you know, they haven't contributed to the global society in hundreds of years, except by polluting the air--did you know that America gets China's polluted air?

Actually, America produces its own polluted air. All those factories back East. And we pollute Canada's air, too. I mean, really, how in the world can that air travel half-way across the globe just to target American airspace? Americans need to get over themselves on that one.

But Chinese Americans need to stop wearing that stuff unless making an ironical statement is the intent. Amidst lots of hipster White people who might appreciate it. Otherwise, it just reinforces how Chinese people just used to be "so clever but they haven't done anything significant in years." Truly powerful people always dress accordingly. When in Rome and all. They never wear Edwardian tea dresses to fancy balls or Consulate General gatherings. Don't do the Chinese equivalent.

4) Making connections with other Chinese Americans through last names.

Short and sweet. It's like asking someone who went to UPenn, so I have a friend so-and-so who went there--know him/her? It's not necessarily bonding to discover you have the same last name as someone else that this person you just met knows and yet you aren't related. How is that empowering? It's just annoying. Why not make connections about something more significant, like asking what the person does, what they want to do. How that contributes, etc, etc. In other words, how about making substantive conversation about real issues?

park

wing #1