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.
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Vegetarians Can Be Tiresome
I used to be one, so I know of what I speak.
Vegetarians, vegans, and all those other people with severe dietary restrictions that are not purely medical need to learn manners. Or stop being churlish, one of the two.
What does that mean? It means that vegetarians always expect everyone else to cater to them but they never cater to anyone else. Ever been to a vegetarian's house? Ever hear them offer you anything with meat? No?
But if they come to your house, guess what you're supposed to do? Offer them something vegetarian, of course!
You'll hear them protest, but vegetarianism is good for you. It's ethical.
And there's the rub. They're always being superior, so they think, morally and ethically. There is always an implied critique on your lifestyle if you do eat meat.
So to recap, 1) they always expect you to cater to them but they never cater to you, a clear case of bad manners, and 2) they act as if you should be grateful to them for not feeding you meat and demanding that you eat more vegetables, which implies
1) you are inferior, you have no morals, ethics, and hence again they are being presumptuous and showing bad manners, and 2) that you don't know what's best for you. Maybe you have a dietary need that requires meat. But that is never considered, either.
And what's more, there is such a level of hypocrisy in these assumnptions that it's almost comical.
Here are the questions that need to be answered by people who think they are superior for not eating meat.
1) Do you take antibiotics?
2) Do you wear leather anywhere on your body?
3) Have you ever taken any other kinds of medicine?
Yes to any of these? Then let's rethink the "moral superiority."
Plus, many local beef providers are actually quite humane and have been actively courting people to consider meat that is locally husbanded. That's right. It keeps smaller animal husbandry purveyors in business.
Vegetarians, vegans, and all those other people with severe dietary restrictions that are not purely medical need to learn manners. Or stop being churlish, one of the two.
What does that mean? It means that vegetarians always expect everyone else to cater to them but they never cater to anyone else. Ever been to a vegetarian's house? Ever hear them offer you anything with meat? No?
But if they come to your house, guess what you're supposed to do? Offer them something vegetarian, of course!
You'll hear them protest, but vegetarianism is good for you. It's ethical.
And there's the rub. They're always being superior, so they think, morally and ethically. There is always an implied critique on your lifestyle if you do eat meat.
So to recap, 1) they always expect you to cater to them but they never cater to you, a clear case of bad manners, and 2) they act as if you should be grateful to them for not feeding you meat and demanding that you eat more vegetables, which implies
1) you are inferior, you have no morals, ethics, and hence again they are being presumptuous and showing bad manners, and 2) that you don't know what's best for you. Maybe you have a dietary need that requires meat. But that is never considered, either.
And what's more, there is such a level of hypocrisy in these assumnptions that it's almost comical.
Here are the questions that need to be answered by people who think they are superior for not eating meat.
1) Do you take antibiotics?
2) Do you wear leather anywhere on your body?
3) Have you ever taken any other kinds of medicine?
Yes to any of these? Then let's rethink the "moral superiority."
Plus, many local beef providers are actually quite humane and have been actively courting people to consider meat that is locally husbanded. That's right. It keeps smaller animal husbandry purveyors in business.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Rafael Vinoly Grant
They rejected the best grant proposal they are going to get in a long time. I think so, anyway, and since I wrote the thing, why wouldn't I think that? But still, the fact that they didn't pick this as one of the five grantees makes me wonder. What are they afraid of? A real Ph.D. candidate? One who isn't getting a Ph.D. in architecture, where they don't know real research if it bit them on the you-know-where, but in a field where architecture requires knowing other disciplines. Fields. An undergraduate degree that isn't primarily a skilled trade degree?
So here it is:
This was a grant about emerging economies, the BRIC economies, and I think it is just too threatening for conventional people not educated outside of the architectural field to contemplate something different. I guarantee none of them has ever read Edward Said. Or, dare I suggest a woman? Chandra Talpade Mohanty?
I await the de-Orientalizing of the architecture field
So here it is:
Despite all recent press, a close reading of
"This project transforms the entire discourse on Chinese urbanization, transcending narrow studies on “hutong preservation” or “migrant housing”. It frames context: Western discourses portray projects as decontextualized icons. We investigate an entire area of all formal, informal, small and medium-scale projects and spaces. Most importantly, we situate them in their larger context. We study
At stake is fundamentally changing strategies and policies for urbanizing
This was a grant about emerging economies, the BRIC economies, and I think it is just too threatening for conventional people not educated outside of the architectural field to contemplate something different. I guarantee none of them has ever read Edward Said. Or, dare I suggest a woman? Chandra Talpade Mohanty?
I await the de-Orientalizing of the architecture field
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Discourse of "Skin Whitening in Asia"
A story on the PRI radio show, The World, made much of the idea that this trend of skin whitening is not so much one of a long history as it is one of the cultural colonialism of the West.
I would suggest that that arrogance is itself evidence of the West's Cultural Colonialism.
How? Because historically, light skin was not "white" skin that supposedly mimicked Western Europeans or Euro-Americans.
It signified wealth. How? Because wealthy people did not labor in the marketplaces or in the fields. In other words, they had enough money, and servants, to do all of that for them. They themselves could engage in the more heady activities of politics, social policy, and the like.
Another cultural specificity that Euro-Americans just don't get? Fat babies. They don't get them. Pride in a fat baby? Don't call her fat, they say! That will give her a complex.
Beyond the practical stupidity of that statement--no, babies don't have that Euro-American obsession with being skinny, that's for adults--fat babies meant something very specific. That you had enough food to feed your baby. That your baby would then be healthy. And that because of that, you in turn must be if not wealthy, at least comfortable.
So before Euro-Americans go patting themselves on the back, again, for setting the "trend" for what constitutes desirable all over the world, maybe they should step back for a moment and consider the culture of which they speak.
I would suggest that that arrogance is itself evidence of the West's Cultural Colonialism.
How? Because historically, light skin was not "white" skin that supposedly mimicked Western Europeans or Euro-Americans.
It signified wealth. How? Because wealthy people did not labor in the marketplaces or in the fields. In other words, they had enough money, and servants, to do all of that for them. They themselves could engage in the more heady activities of politics, social policy, and the like.
Another cultural specificity that Euro-Americans just don't get? Fat babies. They don't get them. Pride in a fat baby? Don't call her fat, they say! That will give her a complex.
Beyond the practical stupidity of that statement--no, babies don't have that Euro-American obsession with being skinny, that's for adults--fat babies meant something very specific. That you had enough food to feed your baby. That your baby would then be healthy. And that because of that, you in turn must be if not wealthy, at least comfortable.
So before Euro-Americans go patting themselves on the back, again, for setting the "trend" for what constitutes desirable all over the world, maybe they should step back for a moment and consider the culture of which they speak.
Friday, March 6, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Pro-Tibet Rhetoric by Euro-Americans Often Is Racist
It is interesting that many Chinese-Americans will not join in the Pro-Tibet rallies. Why not, you wonder? Are they all so awful, have they all been so indoctrinated that they simply cannot contemplate that Tibetans civil, not human, let's call it something that Americans can relate to in their own past, civil rights, are being violated?
The short answer: no. Chinese-Americans, or rather, American-Chinese, get it. Of course they are offended. They think it's wrong. So why don't they join in the debate?
Because pro-Tibet rallies that critique Chinese people are often shorthand for racism against Chinese.
How, you ask?
Let's begin with some basics. Ever notice a white person criticizing Tibet? Think about this. Do they have a lot of American-Chinese friends? No? Number one, then.
Number two, why not? Because they assume that all Chinese people must be bad, because their government, and let's face it, white people always say it's your government since they immediately forget that lots of Chinese people have been here for generations. They're still not American, hence the term American-Chinese, rather than Chinese-American. So, alright. They don't have any faith that these people have any critical thinking skills and can critique the Chinese government. Even though per capita, there are more Chinese people born here and abroad who have professional jobs than Euro-Americans, per capita.
Third, let's see. When was the last time a Chinese person born anywhere suffered from racism, I mean of the institutionalized kind that makes them feel if they are violated even verbally, they can't say anything, they just have to swallow it because otherwise people will just say, "Oh, you're being too sensitive." Yesterday? Okay, so yesterday that just happened. Sanctioned by the community, who doesn't want to hear that you're just too sensitive. You're just being too "touchy." That's right. Institutionalized racism.
Soo, that person next to you complaining about all those civil rights violations occurring across the world? Does she or he care about how the civil rights of that Chinese person standing next to them are constantly being violated, flouted, or otherwise ignored?
And does that person care about how Latinos, so often just "Mexicans" as if it's a dirty word, are being exploited? How their labor is exploited but the government won't legalize them. So they can be exploited and then deported conveniently, to whatever country they come from, when we're done exploiting their labor? Does that person crying "Foul" about Tibet care about them?
Do you see those people demonstrating in the streets? In San Francisco? In Los Angeles? Anywhere? About the poor black man caught smoking pot forty-five years ago in the South and is still in jail? Along with hundreds of his now compadres? Or protesting the government, yes, the federal government, initially introduced drugs to South and East L.A. to keep the black people down who were finally feeling their civil rights? Do you see them protesting that, and all the ills that have resulted from it? Do you see it?
I heard from someone that after all, there isn't a ranking of these kinds of social ills. The one is as bad as the other.
No. They aren't. If it's happening in your own backyard, that's worse. Because you have to take care of your own house before you go pointing the finger at how someone else's is corrupt. Something American's are soo good at doing: pointing the finger elsewhere. Can't think about how we still oppress people here.
It's so much easier to point the finger at China and Tibet. It's not an issue of condoning heinous civil rights violations abroad. It's about doing something about the heinous, continued civil rights violations here, in the U.S., of the poor, disadvantaged or just plain colored people.
If you're so worried about civil rights violations, shut up. And do something. Here. In your community. With your government. Protest that. Or are you too racist or bigoted to care about the poor people in the South? The disadvantaged colored people in the cities? And the exploited migrant women and men picking all your vegetables?
The short answer: no. Chinese-Americans, or rather, American-Chinese, get it. Of course they are offended. They think it's wrong. So why don't they join in the debate?
Because pro-Tibet rallies that critique Chinese people are often shorthand for racism against Chinese.
How, you ask?
Let's begin with some basics. Ever notice a white person criticizing Tibet? Think about this. Do they have a lot of American-Chinese friends? No? Number one, then.
Number two, why not? Because they assume that all Chinese people must be bad, because their government, and let's face it, white people always say it's your government since they immediately forget that lots of Chinese people have been here for generations. They're still not American, hence the term American-Chinese, rather than Chinese-American. So, alright. They don't have any faith that these people have any critical thinking skills and can critique the Chinese government. Even though per capita, there are more Chinese people born here and abroad who have professional jobs than Euro-Americans, per capita.
Third, let's see. When was the last time a Chinese person born anywhere suffered from racism, I mean of the institutionalized kind that makes them feel if they are violated even verbally, they can't say anything, they just have to swallow it because otherwise people will just say, "Oh, you're being too sensitive." Yesterday? Okay, so yesterday that just happened. Sanctioned by the community, who doesn't want to hear that you're just too sensitive. You're just being too "touchy." That's right. Institutionalized racism.
Soo, that person next to you complaining about all those civil rights violations occurring across the world? Does she or he care about how the civil rights of that Chinese person standing next to them are constantly being violated, flouted, or otherwise ignored?
And does that person care about how Latinos, so often just "Mexicans" as if it's a dirty word, are being exploited? How their labor is exploited but the government won't legalize them. So they can be exploited and then deported conveniently, to whatever country they come from, when we're done exploiting their labor? Does that person crying "Foul" about Tibet care about them?
Do you see those people demonstrating in the streets? In San Francisco? In Los Angeles? Anywhere? About the poor black man caught smoking pot forty-five years ago in the South and is still in jail? Along with hundreds of his now compadres? Or protesting the government, yes, the federal government, initially introduced drugs to South and East L.A. to keep the black people down who were finally feeling their civil rights? Do you see them protesting that, and all the ills that have resulted from it? Do you see it?
I heard from someone that after all, there isn't a ranking of these kinds of social ills. The one is as bad as the other.
No. They aren't. If it's happening in your own backyard, that's worse. Because you have to take care of your own house before you go pointing the finger at how someone else's is corrupt. Something American's are soo good at doing: pointing the finger elsewhere. Can't think about how we still oppress people here.
It's so much easier to point the finger at China and Tibet. It's not an issue of condoning heinous civil rights violations abroad. It's about doing something about the heinous, continued civil rights violations here, in the U.S., of the poor, disadvantaged or just plain colored people.
If you're so worried about civil rights violations, shut up. And do something. Here. In your community. With your government. Protest that. Or are you too racist or bigoted to care about the poor people in the South? The disadvantaged colored people in the cities? And the exploited migrant women and men picking all your vegetables?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Indie103.1.com
Ever since Indie 103.1 went off the FM airwaves on January 16, 2009, there has been chatter about what will happen to the online-only radio station.
I have a few things to say about it. First of all, Indie 1031.com is still great--it is not a shadow of its former airwave radio self. Moreover, Indie 103.1.com is better by far than any other Independent/Alternative radio station. This includes another favorite of this blog, Morning Becomes Eclectic, now hosted by Jason Bentley. It's good, but not as good. Too much, well, eclecticism. I don't always want to listen to some weird, breathy woman from Brazil trying to be ethereal, if you know what I mean.
As for the few pseudo-news (i.e. blog posts) that lament that Indie 103.1.com is a shadow of its former self now that Jonesy's Jukebox is no more, I disagree. I appreciate Steve Jones and all but I am not one who laments the passing of his show. I mean, one can only listen to so much 70's music, which often comprised the majority of his two hour show. Ugh. It is sad that Henry Rollins's show, Harmony in My Head is moving to KCRW, but Indie still rules.
And for the many who want Indie to live on beyond the internet, there was one person who was evidently petitioning Entravision, the owners of the station who are still evidently willing to support it online. I remain unconvinced how effective that was.
And while it is great that Henry Rollins will be moving to KCRW for a new forum for his show, Harmony in My Head, I still think that Indie 103.1 is by far the best radio around. I will be sticking with it!
I have a few things to say about it. First of all, Indie 1031.com is still great--it is not a shadow of its former airwave radio self. Moreover, Indie 103.1.com is better by far than any other Independent/Alternative radio station. This includes another favorite of this blog, Morning Becomes Eclectic, now hosted by Jason Bentley. It's good, but not as good. Too much, well, eclecticism. I don't always want to listen to some weird, breathy woman from Brazil trying to be ethereal, if you know what I mean.
As for the few pseudo-news (i.e. blog posts) that lament that Indie 103.1.com is a shadow of its former self now that Jonesy's Jukebox is no more, I disagree. I appreciate Steve Jones and all but I am not one who laments the passing of his show. I mean, one can only listen to so much 70's music, which often comprised the majority of his two hour show. Ugh. It is sad that Henry Rollins's show, Harmony in My Head is moving to KCRW, but Indie still rules.
And for the many who want Indie to live on beyond the internet, there was one person who was evidently petitioning Entravision, the owners of the station who are still evidently willing to support it online. I remain unconvinced how effective that was.
And while it is great that Henry Rollins will be moving to KCRW for a new forum for his show, Harmony in My Head, I still think that Indie 103.1 is by far the best radio around. I will be sticking with it!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Being Western Isn't Enough of a Credential Anymore
The days when being a Westerner, especially one form Western Europe (read: Britain) or from the U.S., in order to be instantly credible, experienced and desirable, are over. In what context? In the East Asia context.
Americans and Western Europeans who travel to India still experience some cache, as do those same people who also travel to other countries in South Asia. They've been colonized enough to be "used to" Westerners who treat a trip to India, for example, as a spiritual pilgrimage. Usually these same people don't subscribe to a "conventional religion" but they sure don't mind using an entire country to activate their "spirituality."
But more and more, partly because much of East Asia was not colonized by these same Western countries, Americans, Brits, French, they aren't instantaneously viewed as more capable, more skilled, more intelligent, or otherwise more informed, than the indigenous peoples. Travel to any of the major cities in China, for example, and one will find more sophistication in the young people than anything Americans might offer. More ambition, better gadgets, and for those born in the city, better educated.
It must be so disappointing for travelers who assume that just because they are less than stellar in their own country, either sexually or professionally, they can still establish their cultural hegemony over there. Well, they can no longer.
Being Euro-American just isn't enough of a credential anymore. Wherever one goes in East Asia, one will find that not only can they do things just as well, they can often do it better, with better technology. It can be done more quicker, and their adoption of newer, more sustainable and efficient technologies is far more rapid and agile than the slow process made in Euro-American countries. Except perhaps those in North-western Europe, where many of these technologies originate.
Nevertheless, the idea of the BRIC economy is more than merely the latest wave of strong, developing economies. It is of cultures that are rapidly gaining on those of the West, building upon both their developments and their mistakes. Americans in particular should take note and stop being so arrogant.
Americans and Western Europeans who travel to India still experience some cache, as do those same people who also travel to other countries in South Asia. They've been colonized enough to be "used to" Westerners who treat a trip to India, for example, as a spiritual pilgrimage. Usually these same people don't subscribe to a "conventional religion" but they sure don't mind using an entire country to activate their "spirituality."
But more and more, partly because much of East Asia was not colonized by these same Western countries, Americans, Brits, French, they aren't instantaneously viewed as more capable, more skilled, more intelligent, or otherwise more informed, than the indigenous peoples. Travel to any of the major cities in China, for example, and one will find more sophistication in the young people than anything Americans might offer. More ambition, better gadgets, and for those born in the city, better educated.
It must be so disappointing for travelers who assume that just because they are less than stellar in their own country, either sexually or professionally, they can still establish their cultural hegemony over there. Well, they can no longer.
Being Euro-American just isn't enough of a credential anymore. Wherever one goes in East Asia, one will find that not only can they do things just as well, they can often do it better, with better technology. It can be done more quicker, and their adoption of newer, more sustainable and efficient technologies is far more rapid and agile than the slow process made in Euro-American countries. Except perhaps those in North-western Europe, where many of these technologies originate.
Nevertheless, the idea of the BRIC economy is more than merely the latest wave of strong, developing economies. It is of cultures that are rapidly gaining on those of the West, building upon both their developments and their mistakes. Americans in particular should take note and stop being so arrogant.
Monday, February 9, 2009
"I don't like Chinese food" Often Equals Racism
It does sound like a leap, but bear with this reasoning.
In an article the other day, an actor who was filming in Hong Kong over the summer vehemently declared he "hated Chinese food." He was there for three months, had nothing to say about traveling, the culture, different as it is from China since it was a colony for 150 years and is inexorably changed, and nothing to say about the experience. Just that he hated Chinese food.
Hmm. What happened to all the other aspects of Hong Kong that are interesting? I know, for the sanitized white tourist, it's far too difficult to embrace.
Imagine that same white tourist, this one from Boston where the actor was from, in, say, India. Suddenly things change, don't they? Because India was a colony for over 300 years, white people who find it far too intimidating to travel to China or even Hong Kong will travel to India. Why? Because int he popular imaginary, there is nothing threatening about India. The people, most obviously, have been subdued for centuries. That they finaly threw off the shackles of colonialism happened only in the recent past. Look how long it's been trying to overcome the long-lasting effects of centuries of slavery and you'll understand that fifty years means nothing compared to hundreds of years. India was a colony for over 300.
So people know that the Indians will speak English. They feel that they ar a non-threatening peole. They aren't violent. They've adopted an originally British Indianized dish of Chicken Tiki Masala, just for the Western palate, even. And theydon't do violent things. They are, in short, nonthreatening.
Imagine China, now. People do't speak the language. The government has never been touched by a Western hand. And the Communism? It wasn't as Marx envisioned. It was never an economic system in China, just another form of imperial control, under a different name. The peole have never been cowed. They do things so differently. There isn't a lot of history about China that has not aready been sanitized by hundreds of years of Western scholars. There are, in short, unknown. Hence threatening. And the likelihood that a Westerner traveling to China knows the language? Right.
So when someone says, I don't like Chinese food, what they are saying is Chinese food is a proxy for a culture and a people they find different, threatening, scary and unable to e cowed. By Western values of "democracy" or "humanity"--yes, that's why we criminalize same-sex marriage, here, homosexuality, colored people, single mothers--yes, we are humane, here, incarcerating old men over fifty years in the South because once, a black man sold some pot. Gee. And what happens to Robert Downey, Jr.? A few months? Hmm. But we are humane. Yes, we are. We value human rights. We don't incarcerate, criminalkize or otherwise discriminate. Unless somehow those groups deserve it.
And imagine if someone said, I hate hot dogs and baseball. What would be the reaction? You mean you hate America?
In an article the other day, an actor who was filming in Hong Kong over the summer vehemently declared he "hated Chinese food." He was there for three months, had nothing to say about traveling, the culture, different as it is from China since it was a colony for 150 years and is inexorably changed, and nothing to say about the experience. Just that he hated Chinese food.
Hmm. What happened to all the other aspects of Hong Kong that are interesting? I know, for the sanitized white tourist, it's far too difficult to embrace.
Imagine that same white tourist, this one from Boston where the actor was from, in, say, India. Suddenly things change, don't they? Because India was a colony for over 300 years, white people who find it far too intimidating to travel to China or even Hong Kong will travel to India. Why? Because int he popular imaginary, there is nothing threatening about India. The people, most obviously, have been subdued for centuries. That they finaly threw off the shackles of colonialism happened only in the recent past. Look how long it's been trying to overcome the long-lasting effects of centuries of slavery and you'll understand that fifty years means nothing compared to hundreds of years. India was a colony for over 300.
So people know that the Indians will speak English. They feel that they ar a non-threatening peole. They aren't violent. They've adopted an originally British Indianized dish of Chicken Tiki Masala, just for the Western palate, even. And theydon't do violent things. They are, in short, nonthreatening.
Imagine China, now. People do't speak the language. The government has never been touched by a Western hand. And the Communism? It wasn't as Marx envisioned. It was never an economic system in China, just another form of imperial control, under a different name. The peole have never been cowed. They do things so differently. There isn't a lot of history about China that has not aready been sanitized by hundreds of years of Western scholars. There are, in short, unknown. Hence threatening. And the likelihood that a Westerner traveling to China knows the language? Right.
So when someone says, I don't like Chinese food, what they are saying is Chinese food is a proxy for a culture and a people they find different, threatening, scary and unable to e cowed. By Western values of "democracy" or "humanity"--yes, that's why we criminalize same-sex marriage, here, homosexuality, colored people, single mothers--yes, we are humane, here, incarcerating old men over fifty years in the South because once, a black man sold some pot. Gee. And what happens to Robert Downey, Jr.? A few months? Hmm. But we are humane. Yes, we are. We value human rights. We don't incarcerate, criminalkize or otherwise discriminate. Unless somehow those groups deserve it.
And imagine if someone said, I hate hot dogs and baseball. What would be the reaction? You mean you hate America?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Faith's Role in Offering Succor
People who are religious will frequently assert that their faith offers succor and solace during difficult times. Death, financial difficulties, work, these are all potential arenas that those who are religious will say that they could not survive if they had not their religion to rely on.
One woman, a Mormon, admitted that during these financially difficult times, she knew that from past experience, she would get through this time, as well. Furthermore, that she knew God would make things alright, though perhaps that result may not come in the form she expects or desires. The past had told her that.
What is really interesting about this is that those who are either agnostic or atheistic, not just towards Christian religions, but towards Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, as well, can experience exactly the same thing.
Therefore, if one experiences tragedy or personal difficulty, unless it results in death, one knows that one will survive. Things will, eventually, be alright. And despite the length of time one was in difficult times, one knows it will pass. Because one knows this from past experience. And one again experiences periods of joy, happiness or contentment.
This is neither an argument for or against religion. It's just an observation that while those who have religious faith think that their faith in the future is exclusive to their belief in a higher being, those without religion experience the same faith that they, too, will be alright. They, however, do not have that higher being in whom they can place that faith/knowledge.
One woman, a Mormon, admitted that during these financially difficult times, she knew that from past experience, she would get through this time, as well. Furthermore, that she knew God would make things alright, though perhaps that result may not come in the form she expects or desires. The past had told her that.
What is really interesting about this is that those who are either agnostic or atheistic, not just towards Christian religions, but towards Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, as well, can experience exactly the same thing.
Therefore, if one experiences tragedy or personal difficulty, unless it results in death, one knows that one will survive. Things will, eventually, be alright. And despite the length of time one was in difficult times, one knows it will pass. Because one knows this from past experience. And one again experiences periods of joy, happiness or contentment.
This is neither an argument for or against religion. It's just an observation that while those who have religious faith think that their faith in the future is exclusive to their belief in a higher being, those without religion experience the same faith that they, too, will be alright. They, however, do not have that higher being in whom they can place that faith/knowledge.
Monday, January 19, 2009
On the Eve of the Inauguration
It is a profound and profoundly moving moment in history. There is simply no other term for it but a moment in history. No one in this world will ever forget where they were and what they were doing on
The nature of President-elect Obama's conduct over the past two months and some days has been extremely moving and personal for innumerable people around this country and indeed, the world. I am no different.
What I find most interesting about this incoming President, and I admit I am more interested in him right now than his administration, is that he has changed the tenor of people's attitudes. Despite the fact that we may be in even more dire circumstances than the Great Depression (after all, this Recession is Global), Mr. Obama has inspired people to change the way they view themselves, their empowerment, and their responsibility to those beyond their own narrow lives.
It is one of the most striking contrasts to the kind of culture and mindset that George W. Bush heralded. With him and his "War on Terror" rather than "Terrorism," Bush instituted a culture of "Me First, in fact, Only Me" wherein the rules of conduct applied to everyone else but oneself. Of course, what that meant was that the rules applied to no one, since everyone occupies the role of "someone else" in relation to other people.
Thus people became rude. They were unrepentantly mean. And racist, "hate" crimes increased dramatically. They could call each other names and then, like Sarah Palin, accuse other people of the very conduct they themselves engaged in by hiding behind the excuse, "Well, you're just being mean." Projection and irresponsibility was the order of the day for eight long years.
If I am any measure, everything has changed. I have gone from being extremely cynical about my agency to feeling that empowerment is less important than the fact that I want to serve my country. I am looking for myriad ways of doing so, despite that I am unemployed and have been for several months. Nevertheless, I am glad I am American. I am actually contemplating wearing an American flag shirt for the celebration in Downtown L.A. though in honesty, I don't have anything like that so I won't. But if I did possess such an item, I certainly would.
I am attending tomorrow morning to watch the Swearing in Ceremony live on enormous screens with thousands of other people. I am taking my daughter to this event, unlike some people I know who are attending the actual inauguration and have left their seven-year old at home. I am going to take photos. Because unlike those other people, I know that though I am not old, this election has not been about me, and this inauguration is likewise, not for just me. It is for and about the younger generation. So while my daughter is not yet two, I intend to take her to this celebration. She will experience what it is like for people to join together in strength, unified in purpose and joined by a vision that can accommodate personal goals in a way that benefits the many. Because even if she does not remember the event when she grows older, I will share that experience with her. With photos and video. And she will know that her life, which began the day before Mr. Obama declared his candidacy, was improved in innumerable, countless ways by this singular event.
I am glad, and proud, to be American. And I will be proud when I go abroad. And people will no longer scorn me when they discover I am American, though I am of color. They will congratulate me. As a representative of something for good.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
As for
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
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?
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?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Unspoken Cohort of this Recession
It is irritating that people are constantly talking about the "downturn"--who was the brilliant person who came up with that euphemism?--always talk about people losing their jobs.
But not about those people who have not been able to find jobs over the past year. These are people who hold multiple degrees. They are not competing in the job market with the people who just lost their jobs at Linens 'n Things or even will be losing them at GM, DHL, or any of these other corporations. No. These are people who occupied upper tier management positions in specialized fields. And hold multiple graduate degrees within those specialized fields.
And the worst part of this particular cohort is that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits. Instead, they live on their 401k's or what little savings they have left. While it is devastating that people are losing their jobs, from where I stand, at least they have benefits they can look forward to. And Congress is contemplating extending unemployment benefits for those who have already been on them for a while. Again, relatively speaking, the appear "lucky."
But not being able to find a job after going to school at least seven additional years to the four for a B.A. is absolutely devastating. Because the likelihood is that while receiving that additional education, that person was not being paid, or if they were for being either a Teaching Assistant or a Research Assistant, the actual pay is enough to qualify one for food stamps and other Federal Aid.
It would be nice if, finally, the mass media would address this very significant cohort of the population in their stories, rather than just focusing on the easy, sensationalist stories regarding lay-offs in large corporations.
But not about those people who have not been able to find jobs over the past year. These are people who hold multiple degrees. They are not competing in the job market with the people who just lost their jobs at Linens 'n Things or even will be losing them at GM, DHL, or any of these other corporations. No. These are people who occupied upper tier management positions in specialized fields. And hold multiple graduate degrees within those specialized fields.
And the worst part of this particular cohort is that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits. Instead, they live on their 401k's or what little savings they have left. While it is devastating that people are losing their jobs, from where I stand, at least they have benefits they can look forward to. And Congress is contemplating extending unemployment benefits for those who have already been on them for a while. Again, relatively speaking, the appear "lucky."
But not being able to find a job after going to school at least seven additional years to the four for a B.A. is absolutely devastating. Because the likelihood is that while receiving that additional education, that person was not being paid, or if they were for being either a Teaching Assistant or a Research Assistant, the actual pay is enough to qualify one for food stamps and other Federal Aid.
It would be nice if, finally, the mass media would address this very significant cohort of the population in their stories, rather than just focusing on the easy, sensationalist stories regarding lay-offs in large corporations.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Identity Politics
Whenever I begin discussing race, the double bind of hyphenation in the U.S., I am often told by some extremely smart person who is inevitably Euro-American (read: white) who scoffs and says s/he just hates identity politics.
And the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who teaches Anti-Bias Curriculum to budding teachers and therapists, as well as classes on how to deal with identity issues in K-12 classrooms. So I asked her how she would respond to such scorn in re: identity politics. She replied that it is not something that you can have a single conversation about and change another person's mind. Rather, she would point out inherent particularities in that other person, who is most likely white, has in his/her identity. They aren't just "white," but they are from Idaho. Their parents immigrated from Ireland. And so on and so forth. Because normally these people don't have to think about their identities, because they are part of the dominant culture. Actually, that's my observation because she seemed to think that white people are not. But so long as they are in control of all the institutions in our society, so long as they dictate the rules, they are the dominant culture. Hey, I don't like it, I just tell it like it is.
So anyway, her point was that over time, this person would realize that his/her identity was also particular, and that just because s/he doesn't have to defend him/herself by explaining that yes, actually, I'm American and my family is a fourth-generation fill-in-the-blank, that they, too, have a quite possibly contested identity.
This answer struck me as fundamentally unsatisfactory. It was, for one, far too touchy-feely. It had no strength behind it. No academic credentials behind it. No one like Susan Stanford Friedman arguing for the fluidity of constructing identity. A constructed narrative of identity that is simply that: a construction. And it is a relational construction defined in terms of the other. Consisting of intentional deletions, insertions and highlights. No one like Ella Shohat to give us a resounding, often extremely, painfully incisive summary of the problems of equating Euro-American definitions of self, agency with authoritative, either when trying to understand people from other countries and especially those in this country but who have different racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. No one invoking Anne McClintock or Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
So now, I'm doing it. To reject identity politics is to reject the idea of a dominant white culture. To reject that is to not understand that there is privilege in the ability to ignore that identities are constructions. After all, if you're part of the dominant culture, no one questions your identity. But identities are narratives that depend upon not just a careful selection of what gets included in that narrative, but also upon systemic, institutionalized constructions of self and other. And those, in turn, rely on the silencing of minority narratives. They rely on the false assumption that identity is fixed, rather than fluid. Indeed, if it were fixed, not so many people who wanted to silence the Obama presidential run would have been quite as threatened as they were.
I intend to keep refining my understanding of identity construction. And next time, if some friend tells me s/he hates it, I will have a few things to say.
And the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who teaches Anti-Bias Curriculum to budding teachers and therapists, as well as classes on how to deal with identity issues in K-12 classrooms. So I asked her how she would respond to such scorn in re: identity politics. She replied that it is not something that you can have a single conversation about and change another person's mind. Rather, she would point out inherent particularities in that other person, who is most likely white, has in his/her identity. They aren't just "white," but they are from Idaho. Their parents immigrated from Ireland. And so on and so forth. Because normally these people don't have to think about their identities, because they are part of the dominant culture. Actually, that's my observation because she seemed to think that white people are not. But so long as they are in control of all the institutions in our society, so long as they dictate the rules, they are the dominant culture. Hey, I don't like it, I just tell it like it is.
So anyway, her point was that over time, this person would realize that his/her identity was also particular, and that just because s/he doesn't have to defend him/herself by explaining that yes, actually, I'm American and my family is a fourth-generation fill-in-the-blank, that they, too, have a quite possibly contested identity.
This answer struck me as fundamentally unsatisfactory. It was, for one, far too touchy-feely. It had no strength behind it. No academic credentials behind it. No one like Susan Stanford Friedman arguing for the fluidity of constructing identity. A constructed narrative of identity that is simply that: a construction. And it is a relational construction defined in terms of the other. Consisting of intentional deletions, insertions and highlights. No one like Ella Shohat to give us a resounding, often extremely, painfully incisive summary of the problems of equating Euro-American definitions of self, agency with authoritative, either when trying to understand people from other countries and especially those in this country but who have different racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. No one invoking Anne McClintock or Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
So now, I'm doing it. To reject identity politics is to reject the idea of a dominant white culture. To reject that is to not understand that there is privilege in the ability to ignore that identities are constructions. After all, if you're part of the dominant culture, no one questions your identity. But identities are narratives that depend upon not just a careful selection of what gets included in that narrative, but also upon systemic, institutionalized constructions of self and other. And those, in turn, rely on the silencing of minority narratives. They rely on the false assumption that identity is fixed, rather than fluid. Indeed, if it were fixed, not so many people who wanted to silence the Obama presidential run would have been quite as threatened as they were.
I intend to keep refining my understanding of identity construction. And next time, if some friend tells me s/he hates it, I will have a few things to say.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Obtuse, Ignorant Republicans
I was just at a symposium at UCLA and I was accosted by a woman named Halie who asked me why I liked Obama. I said that I had liked him since 2004 when Bush won re-election, I had made a bumper sticker for Obama. What did I like? That he was smart. I then told her about an Op-Ed letter in the L.A. Times in which I paraphrased a woman who said many people like her cared about others, wanted policies on Health Care and Education that did not just serve themselves. And that there were many others like her. They were called Democrats. She laughed.
And then this woman named Dolly (can you believe that name??), turned to me and began lecturing me. Did you know that Chris Rock was a Republican? Did you know that Republicans vanquished the KKK? They didn't. They aren't vanquished and certainly were not during the 1960's, when they hung black people at will. And did you know Don King was a Republican? And that means what?
First, I wonder why she kept bringing up all these black examples of Republicans. And then referencing the KKK. If you think Don King is your best example of what a Republican is, you are two things. You are a bigot. Another word for racist. Because you automatically assume that simply because a few black people are part of the Republican rolls, that fact somehow mitigates racism. And she also proved her racism because she was evidently assuming because I am colored, though not black, I MUST have voted for Obama because he is colored, too. Because she kept saying things about black people in trying to prove me "wrong"--of what, I have no idea. And it was shown by the Pew Research Center that this year's Republican National Convention had the lowest number of black people in recent history: less than 6% black. Just for comparison, the Democratic National Convention had over 40%.
And she also proved her unrepentant, uninformed obtuseness. Because what does Don King being in your political party mean? You have bad taste in hair? Oh, right, you're not very smart. I forgot.
But like I said, evidently she thought that I was just voting for Obama because I'm not white. Even though I never said anything about race. I said I thought he was smart. Twice. That's it. And that Democrats vote on policies, even if it does raise their taxes, because they want to help other people. Today. Not 100 years ago. What kind of argument is that if you have to say that your party helped squash the KKK over a hundred years ago? Especially if you're wrong?
Clearly, this woman does not know history. Does she know that, statistically, immigrants who become citizens become Republicans? Because they read the original ideals of Republicans. No, she says, she did not. Does she know that it was the 1960's that turned the Republicans into the kind of Neo-Cons they are today? That it was part of a grand strategy to retake the South (boy, did they ever) as Republican territory? No, she did not. Did she know that Republican politicians have made it a dirty word to be "smart?" And that is what I and the letter-writer (which admittedly I have probably decontextualized) were referring to in asserting that "we care": because Republicans are always labeling Democrats, and not just the politicians but everyone else, as "Limousine Liberals" and that we're intellectuals. As if policies like Healthcare for ALL children--which Democrats want but Republicans don't--is not humanitarian but merely "Elitist."
How did this conversation with this bigot begin? Because she overheard me say Democrats value taking care of others and that I thought Obama was smart. So she just HAD to say something "because I have been standing here listening to her and I have some things to say!" Again, my question is, who asked her? This wasn't her conversation. But, like so many white people, she just feels she is entitled to intrude on any conversation. So she evidently objected to my observation that Democrats care? Or that Obama is actually smart? Gee, you're right. If you're a Republican, evidently those things are offensive! They aren't true!
I am so sick of rabid idiots who are rude and intrude on other people's conversations. And I'm sick of Republicans. Not coincidentally, they seem to go together.
And then this woman named Dolly (can you believe that name??), turned to me and began lecturing me. Did you know that Chris Rock was a Republican? Did you know that Republicans vanquished the KKK? They didn't. They aren't vanquished and certainly were not during the 1960's, when they hung black people at will. And did you know Don King was a Republican? And that means what?
First, I wonder why she kept bringing up all these black examples of Republicans. And then referencing the KKK. If you think Don King is your best example of what a Republican is, you are two things. You are a bigot. Another word for racist. Because you automatically assume that simply because a few black people are part of the Republican rolls, that fact somehow mitigates racism. And she also proved her racism because she was evidently assuming because I am colored, though not black, I MUST have voted for Obama because he is colored, too. Because she kept saying things about black people in trying to prove me "wrong"--of what, I have no idea. And it was shown by the Pew Research Center that this year's Republican National Convention had the lowest number of black people in recent history: less than 6% black. Just for comparison, the Democratic National Convention had over 40%.
And she also proved her unrepentant, uninformed obtuseness. Because what does Don King being in your political party mean? You have bad taste in hair? Oh, right, you're not very smart. I forgot.
But like I said, evidently she thought that I was just voting for Obama because I'm not white. Even though I never said anything about race. I said I thought he was smart. Twice. That's it. And that Democrats vote on policies, even if it does raise their taxes, because they want to help other people. Today. Not 100 years ago. What kind of argument is that if you have to say that your party helped squash the KKK over a hundred years ago? Especially if you're wrong?
Clearly, this woman does not know history. Does she know that, statistically, immigrants who become citizens become Republicans? Because they read the original ideals of Republicans. No, she says, she did not. Does she know that it was the 1960's that turned the Republicans into the kind of Neo-Cons they are today? That it was part of a grand strategy to retake the South (boy, did they ever) as Republican territory? No, she did not. Did she know that Republican politicians have made it a dirty word to be "smart?" And that is what I and the letter-writer (which admittedly I have probably decontextualized) were referring to in asserting that "we care": because Republicans are always labeling Democrats, and not just the politicians but everyone else, as "Limousine Liberals" and that we're intellectuals. As if policies like Healthcare for ALL children--which Democrats want but Republicans don't--is not humanitarian but merely "Elitist."
How did this conversation with this bigot begin? Because she overheard me say Democrats value taking care of others and that I thought Obama was smart. So she just HAD to say something "because I have been standing here listening to her and I have some things to say!" Again, my question is, who asked her? This wasn't her conversation. But, like so many white people, she just feels she is entitled to intrude on any conversation. So she evidently objected to my observation that Democrats care? Or that Obama is actually smart? Gee, you're right. If you're a Republican, evidently those things are offensive! They aren't true!
I am so sick of rabid idiots who are rude and intrude on other people's conversations. And I'm sick of Republicans. Not coincidentally, they seem to go together.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Some Thoughts
In an article in the LA Times, which is a far more liberal newspaper than any of the other national newspapers, including the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times, I read an article about race, white voters and Obama.
I thought this one quote, by a 47 year old man whose ancestors were slave owners, was really on point. Bear in mind that while this was in the context of voting, it is generally relevant to Euro-Americans and their approach and reluctance to discuss racism.
He says: "For me, the Obama thing is a giant step forward for America," he said. The 47-year-old's ancestors once lorded over black slaves as owners of one of the Old South's largest plantation empires. Electing a black candidate, he said, would show that "we're not just the slavery nation, the Jim Crow nation." He then later observes, that Obama, if elected, would quell overseas critics who accuse the United States of racism. If critics like Steele called that "white guilt," he said, then so be it.
Guilt, he said, "has a place and a role. Those who fail to feel guilt are sociopaths."
It is good to see this kind of article in a national newspaper that can also be accessed online. Though whether people will read this, and whether more importantly it will spark the kind of critical self-examination needed, is another question.
Too long, those of color have been forced to dance around the "politically correct" position of not raising the issue of racism, or indeed even mentioning the word, around Euro-Americans. Too long. It is as if we must acknowledge that, "Hey, if I feel guilt, isn't that enough?"
No, it isn't. Changes must be wrought, not simply in individual minds, but collectively. So that the Neo-Nazis who hatched a plan to assassinate Obama are not merely brushed under the media rug. This is not a mere blip on the screen of information. This is a postule that reveals a much deeper, systemic rot underneath: the systemic, institutionalized racism that is symbolized by Palin's followers. Immoral. Radical. And yet, knowing that they are referencing hundreds of years of domestic terrorism, otherwise referred to as racism, that they are buoyed still by institutions that inadequately address Neo-Nazism, racism, and "hate-based" crimes. Because today, these crimes are treated as individual acts, rather than collective acts that reference history. And becuase of that referencing, have a greater deleterious and pernicious effect on the psyche of its victims: people of color.
I thought this one quote, by a 47 year old man whose ancestors were slave owners, was really on point. Bear in mind that while this was in the context of voting, it is generally relevant to Euro-Americans and their approach and reluctance to discuss racism.
He says: "For me, the Obama thing is a giant step forward for America," he said. The 47-year-old's ancestors once lorded over black slaves as owners of one of the Old South's largest plantation empires. Electing a black candidate, he said, would show that "we're not just the slavery nation, the Jim Crow nation." He then later observes, that Obama, if elected, would quell overseas critics who accuse the United States of racism. If critics like Steele called that "white guilt," he said, then so be it.
Guilt, he said, "has a place and a role. Those who fail to feel guilt are sociopaths."
It is good to see this kind of article in a national newspaper that can also be accessed online. Though whether people will read this, and whether more importantly it will spark the kind of critical self-examination needed, is another question.
Too long, those of color have been forced to dance around the "politically correct" position of not raising the issue of racism, or indeed even mentioning the word, around Euro-Americans. Too long. It is as if we must acknowledge that, "Hey, if I feel guilt, isn't that enough?"
No, it isn't. Changes must be wrought, not simply in individual minds, but collectively. So that the Neo-Nazis who hatched a plan to assassinate Obama are not merely brushed under the media rug. This is not a mere blip on the screen of information. This is a postule that reveals a much deeper, systemic rot underneath: the systemic, institutionalized racism that is symbolized by Palin's followers. Immoral. Radical. And yet, knowing that they are referencing hundreds of years of domestic terrorism, otherwise referred to as racism, that they are buoyed still by institutions that inadequately address Neo-Nazism, racism, and "hate-based" crimes. Because today, these crimes are treated as individual acts, rather than collective acts that reference history. And becuase of that referencing, have a greater deleterious and pernicious effect on the psyche of its victims: people of color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
park
wing #1