Review, "Rebirth of a Nation" by Jackson Lears

An excellent re-telling of the period between the American Civil War and the First World War, Rebirth of a Nation is ultimately a critique not merely of American Imperialism, and not even of American Racism, but of American Militaristism, as it has informed its imperalistic and racist history. On occasion enamored of densely-packed sentences reminiscent of many less artful academicians, Jackson Lears constructs a predominately accessible, readable, and fascinating narrative that tells us not just where America has been, but why it is here today.

Thus, throughout his narrative, he draws clear analogies between the choices that a militaristic Teddy Roosevelt made with the ones George W. Bush has made, decisions couched in the language of regeneration-through-blood-and-military-sacrifice that can bring an "American-styled democracy" to all lands. Should not all lands (read: economic colonies) enjoy the riches we do every day? Never mind, he reminds us, that the only way for these other colonies, like present-day Iraq, must be economically exploited for their material and labor resources to ensure the continued livelihood of large corporations whom Bush had invested in.

More importantly, Lears draws a stark picture of racism from Reconstruction onward. As Eric Foner has convincingly shown, Reconstruction was initially an experiment of joint white-black governance of the south, as well as black self-governance, quickly gutted by the successful backroom deals made between Andrew Johnson and white Democrats anxious to re-establish their power base. Too long have Americans ignored the long history of racism and its continued resonance in our policies today.

Lears shines a startlingly harsh light on all these convenient obliviousnesses and demonstrates that we cannot remain blind to these impulses, of self-righteousness in the name of Christianity, of racism couched in moral superiority, and of economic imperalism disguised as benevolent paternalism or cleansing militarism, if we intend to conduct ourselves with true integrity.

Swine Flu and the Racist Discourse

The other day, someone said that he didn't want to be around "Mexican" people at all. He then observed that he didn't feel the same way when there was the media-driven SARS scare. Of course, he is East Asian.

This is an interesting illustration of a few things. First, that while ethnic minorities cannot be racist in that they do not have the social power that allows them to act out their bigotry on a level that can intimidate on a deeper level than just a personal threat, they can harbor racist ideation. Meaning they can have racist thoughts. The big difference, obviously, is that members of ethnic/racial minorities cannot plug into, resonate with, or otherwise take advantage of a long, historically-established, set of institutionalized racist agendas that have made entire racial groups feel oppressed, fearful, and exploited because they are the victims of such behavior. Racism as a practice implies the ability to do just that: plug into a larger, institutionalized, oppressive, and exploitative discourse that regulates our institutions. However, you can be a bigot.

So that was the first interesting characteristic of this particular observation.

The second is this. That the reason this person did not fear for his health during the SARS scare was that he was Asian, and he knew that the likelihood of his contracting that illness here, in the U.S., was remote. And what's more, he knew that he, as an East Asian, had absolutely nothing to do with its spread so the idea that people were demanding that East Asians be confined if they had traveled, was not only preposterous, but as he correctly had identified, was racist.

And this is the thing about identifying these illnesses along with a particular country: they plug into, resonate with, and further institutionalize people's racist ideation, especially those Euro-Americans in power. And here is the true racism, because it can be acted upon through legal, institutional avenues that then reinforce people's racist ideas.

(Chinese) Avian flu, (Mexican) swine flu, (Asian) SARS, all of these illnesses legitimized racist discourses against an entire people, here and abroad.

On returning to this man, he further said that not only would he not want to be around any "Mexicans" at all, but that he didn't think it was safe to go to entire counties because a few "possible" cases might have been identified in those counties. That is akin to asking a person who lives in Los Angeles whether they are alright because an earthquake of 4.4 registered in Morro Bay (that is in the middle of the state). In short, it is quite ridiculous.

Moreover, the chances that you will get sick from this flu strain is very, very small. I mean, really. All the people who have been confirmed to have contracted it had mostly 1)mild symptom, and 2) have added up to may 20. Or 30. All over this nation.

Who is to blame? First, and most obviously, the media. While scientists keep telling the news media that this is not hitting people very hard, even local NPR--for shame--stations rebroadcast the "threat" on the hour, along with the hourly news update.

Second, people are to blame. For being alarmist. Gullible. And watching TV news, which is not news. It's entertainment.

This country seems filled with people who always need a scapegoat, a bugaboo, or some kind of enemy to "fight." Who knows why.

Texas Rep. Betty Brown: She Didnt Insult "Asians"--She Insulted CHINESE-Americans

Here is the text, cited from Thinkprogress, below.

The problem with her subsequent apology is that it is directed at Asian Amnericans, when her racist comment was directed at CHINESE AMERICANS IN PARTICULAR.

This is an important distinction. Because the discourse of racism directed specifically Chinese either born here in the U.S. or foreign born becomes erased, elided, invisible, by the discourse of "Asian Americans" and the supposed collective group that forms.

Sorry, but Asian Americans are not a discrete group. But Asians encompasses South Asia (such as India), Southeast Asian (Thailand, Vietnam, for example) and East Asia (China, Japan and Korea). So "Asians" is not a cohesive group.

Imagine how insulted Northern Europeans would be to be confused with someone from, say, Italy, and you'll understand.

Who says racism is latent in America?

"“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told [Organization of Chinese Americans representative Ramey] Ko: 'Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?'

Buddhism, Like All Religions, Has Cultural Connotations Westerners Don't Get

I was attending a lecture at UCLA by Professor Gregory Schopen. As is clear, the man is no slouch in the intellect department nor is he uninformed about Buddhism, the South Asian and Southeast Asian kind that Euro-Americans are so enamored of.

Several months ago, I won't quote who, a professor in that same department said in an LA Times article that Buddhism was anything one brought to it. It was as if it was a free-floating thing. Transcending culture. Time. Timeless.

I'm not certain what he meant. But I know what a lot of Euro-Americans think: "Hey, Buddhism is, like, this totally cool religion! I can, like, meditate, and feel good! Like I'm not making all this bad karma, you know? And it's so open. This Noble Eight-fold Path is great, the Four Noble Truths are great, and if I follow them, I am soo superior to my fellow average white American! And you know what? If I add a few new-agey, completely stupid ideas that came out of my own head, hey, that's alright because it's Buddhism! Everything and anything goes! Oh, and we're apolitical, the Buddha doesn't like that. Except when it comes to China. Then we're really political, but the Dalai Lama says it's okay."

Something like that.

I have few things to say about those opinions. First, they are wrong. Buddhism is not an open, free-floating religion that accepts all the stupid ideas that you can come up with. It's not the "new religion" that can replace the narrow-mindedness you associate with Christianity. It's also not a way to forget you are a white, Euro-American. Sorry. You don't get to just adopt the "good bits" and feel good about yourself, all the while maintaining your white superiority. Doesn't work like that.

Buddhism is a very culture-specific religion. Like all religions. There are certain practices, tenets, and beliefs that reflect very specific times, places and people. That's right, folks. You can't just plug in, take what you want, and say blithely, "Hey, I'm a Buddhist! Everything goes!"

What does this very brief cultural critique of white Americans who feel like if they don't fit into the Christian tradition, they can easily adopt and culturally colonize this other one? Well, exactly this. That during this faculty lecture, amongst the many arguments Schopen was making was that not only was the Buddha portrayed in many narratives as a businessman, but that he was an eminent pragmatist. That his concern was not to remain "up in the clouds, meditating" the way all these annoying Euro-Americans do when they're trying to escape the pain in their lives. That he was often portrayed in dialogues as teaching very practical lessons regarding institutional longevity and even basic successful institutionalization that rather less-than-pragmatic monks often did not grasp. Else what was the need for such didactic texts?

He also argues that the idiots always "meditating" were considered the fringe. Rather like they are here. Loser fringe people who can't make it in the mainstream world, so they run away to the "land of spirituality", India. Which probably doesn't appreciate all these annoying Euro-Americans looking in someone else's backyard for things they should be seeking in their own.

Moreover, and I find this particularly entertaining in re: these Euro-Americans here, things like the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths? Well, guess what? They weren't universal.

Gasp!

Yes, it's just that these were amongst the few scriptures that were translated into English. So lots of white people got their hands on them, assumed that they were representative of all of Buddhism, and voila! Globalization! Universalization! Stupidity.

The crux of the problem is that the majority of white Americans "practicing" Buddhism don't speak any language other than American English. They haven't grasped the fact that there are literally stacks and stacks of volumes at UCLA's YRL, East Asian Library, that have yet to be explored. Of course, that would require the average American interested in this sort of thing to be, oh, bilingual. Perish the thought!

Can't do it. Much easier to remain in a haze of ignorance abroad, traveling around India, Nepal, or wherever the heck it is convenient for these fringe Americans to be and not confront the fact that they cannot succeed in their own country. That they have to go abroad for some Cultural Imperialism before they can feel good about themselves.

James Otis Auctions Mohandas Gandhi's Items

It's true, the Indian businessman who successfully bid on the glasses and other personal items from James Otis, a self-proclaimed "pacifist".

But the problem with Mr. Otis, and others in this country like him, is that although he claims to respect India, he refused to honor their sovereignty by fundamentally recognizing that his act of putting them up for auction was a cultural, if not ethical and moral violation.

Why is it a violation? Imagine if some Indian, or, gasp, Chinese person owned some memorabilia of Abraham Lincoln's. Can you imagine the uproar, the American national outrage? And then, imagine if this foreign national said, "Well, I'll give these over to your government to display in the Smithsonian, but only if you agree to raise your national spending on Welfare Programs, especially for single parent households."

Imagine that. Can't do it? Well, that's exactly what Mr. Otis did. Since when did we allow someone from another country who possessed cultural icons from our country hold those items hostage until we changed our domestic policies? Never? Right.

So where do Americans think it's alright to coerce other countries that they should change their policies or they'll go right on doing the wrong thing and sell off/auction off their cultural icons?

Oh, right, Western Europeans and Euro-Americans like James Otis, and Mr. Berge, Yves Saint Laurent's partner.