Weblog
Tuesday, 05 August 2008
-
I Like To Jog
Denny Chan, Co-Chair
I like to jog. I’ve found it to be a great time to clear my mind, get some fresh air and release some endorphins. There’s this very beautiful path right by my house, which is about a five minute walk away from a nearby lake. Along the jog, I usually pass the lake, some condominiums, gas stations, restaurants, a busy intersection, and so forth. Given the lack of activity in a small, Midwestern town like mine, going for a daily jog can be one of the highlights to my day.
On July 3 of this year, the eve of our nation’s birthday, I went for a jog in the early evening before dinner. I was starting my trek over the bridge, enjoying the sun setting on the small lake, when two cars passed me on my right. The first car was chock full of what appeared to be high school-age youth with their windows rolled down, having what seemed to be a genuinely good time. They were screaming something, but I couldn’t quite make it out. As the second car passed me, I concluded that the two cars were people who knew each other and that they were following one another. The second car was also packed with high school youth with their windows down and music blaring loudly.
And that’s when it happened. Some youth in the second car screamed loudly. I couldn’t make out everything they were saying, but I definitely heard the word, “ASIAN.” With their fingers and daunting looks, I had been singled out—for whatever reason—based on my race. This wouldn’t be the first time something of this nature has happened in my hometown. But perhaps the most annoying part was the timing of it all. Because this shout out occurred only about a quarter into my jog, I had the remaining 1.75 miles to think about this incident. Talk about clearing my mind.
It’s times like these when I really wish I lived elsewhere in the United States…anywhere else with a more sizeable people of color community. It does not surprise me that on the eve of our nation’s founding (the 200th-and-something-anniversary, mind you) that I would still so deliberately be made to feel like an outsider in a town I was born and raised in. But even if it’s not a surprise, it’s still painful, realistic, and unfortunate.
My friends from college and I have talked a lot about Midwest brain drain, people who are either born and or raised in the Midwest who leave to go somewhere else more “cosmopolitan.” Indeed, lots of my college friends have either left the state of Michigan or are making plans to leave the Midwest. Locations like New York and California often top the list of places where people end up. And I sometimes find myself fantasizing about what life would be like on a coast: living in the proximity to ethnic enclaves, hanging out with my friends, being active in a community that shares and espouses my values and ideas.
Usually about half way through the day dreaming is when I stop myself with the thought, “Denny, you’re FROM the Midwest.” A friend and mentor of mine who runs a racial justice non-profit organization once told me, in response to my question about how she’s able to sustain herself in this community doing the work that she does, that if everyone were to leave, this place would not get any better. This struck a chord. I do want to help build a more inclusive community, and I don’t want other people to have to face the experiences I did growing up in a hometown like mine.
What are the personal costs of doing this type of work in a community that is not supportive though? It can make the work more frustrating, challenging and tiring in nature. But this struggle, even if it is simply to make my community a more inclusive place, is worth it. Sure, other people can come here from the New Yorks and Los Angeleses of the U.S. and call this their “home,” but as someone born and raised in the Midwest, do I not have a greater responsibility to stay around and clean up this mess?
Monday, 28 July 2008
-
Histories are Real
Toby Wu, Programming Co-Chair
I am very interested in how we are taught our histories, which is why I chose to major in History & Education. I mean, these questions are worthwhile to consider: What do our histories entail? Why is knowing our histories important? How do we recognize and teach our histories? When I was helping out with CYI's Summer Leadership Institute this past weekend, I thought about these questions some more. The workshop allowed for these young people -- all in high school -- to take in significant periods of Asian American history and to process their own relationship to the history. For me, it was fascinating to hear their responses to our guiding questions.
At the beginning, the participants characterized their relationships to Asian American history as generally weak and impersonal. Learning about Angel Island, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese American internment, and legal cases such as United States v. Thind and Ozawa vs. United States meant little to them, because they were all so distant from their lifetimes. When we asked why it was important to learn history, participants responded something to the extent of, "History repeats itself, so we should learn from our mistakes." It was a fine response, but I still wanted more. It just felt so trite, because it was how we were taught in our history classes on the first day of class. I wanted to challenge them some more.
With the help of the other facilitators, I think we had a successful moment of facilitation when I began to refer to the Ozawa and Thind cases as a jumping point. Why is citizenship important? What does citizenship give us? Why are those rights and privileges important? What do we enjoy now that are derived from our citizenship in this country? We continued the day with a screening of "Who Killed Vincent Chin?" and a brief Q&A with director Christine Choy. At the end, some of the participants did express a newfound appreciation for Asian American history. but even then, the responses to why Asian American history was important to know remained the same.
Their answers emphasized the content of the history, whereas I wanted the participants to think about the power of it. The omission of the histories of marginalized peoples is an act of oppression not only because we should all know our histories (which is a matter of principle) but also, because that limits the abilities of marginalized peoples to organize and to form collectives from their shared politicization. This dismissal of our histories in our channels of nation-building (such as schooling) hides, more than anything, the ways we are politicized or deprives us of a kind of vocabulary to articulate who we are.
I am an advocate of reconceptualizing the histories we teach our young people because history education is a crucial site for movement building. The potential is huge. The legal cases involving Ozawa and Thind are not two independent cases; rather, they contribute dynamically to the political formulation of our Asian American identity (though not to suggest that Asian Americans are folks who wanted to be white but aren't). Maybe then, there would not be so many divisive conversations about who is legitimately Asian American or what countries fall under Asia. Maybe then, we would begin to have more productive conversations about how our politicization is shifting, and how we may reconsider our identities to incorporate new groups. Maybe then, words like ching chong would have a stronger resonance with more of us, not because they are necessarily abrasive or vulgar, but because they are contextualized by a larger picture (or should I say, movie?) of history in our minds. And of course, content is important, but we will also need to consider the frameworks with which to present the content, because just as learning about the American Revolution has implications for informing our identities as Americans, learning about Asian American histories has implications for informing our identities as Asian Americans. (I'm not trying to be divisive by seeing color; I'm just trying to be real.)
Returning to the content-focused responses to why learning history is important, I would even assert that those responses are reminiscent of right-wing rhetoric, which I have often found to be dealing with principles and content more than about systems and frameworks. I'm currently reading The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, and of course, conversations about the nonprofit industrial complex emerged from the left. It makes sense to me that the right would not encourage those conversations, so they encourage conversations about the principles of charity instead. In my mind, the debates about abortion, same sex marriage, and immigration are only cousins to this issue of recognizing our histories. to move the country forward, we need to go beyond the principles of life-killing, institution-preservation, and legality and recognize these systems of sexism, heterosexism, and racism.
Tuesday, 01 July 2008
-
This week's entry is from Communications Co-Chair Ryan Fukumori (a.k.a. the guy who posts these)-----------------------
For the Love of the Movement?Three weeks into my freshman year at
Aside from some chunks of the Manifesto and a half-assed yet interest-piquing overview of socialism in my 10th-grade history class, I hadn’t really considered myself a follower of principled radical politics to that point. I admired Malcolm X, grew up nearby the former stomping grounds of the Black Panthers, and found inspiration in the Third World Liberation Front, but back then terms like dialectical materialism and petit-bourgeoisie
Eighteen months in the ISO seemed like a lifetime unto itself. I organized contingents to antiwar marches in D.C., grassroots student immigrants rights coalitions, and anti-police brutality speaker panels. I sold the organization’s weekly periodical in 40-degree weather on Saturday mornings in
And, after a year and a half, I was never happier than when I left.
Why? Beneath the powerful rhetoric and dedication of the ISO’s cadre lay an organization beset by a bevy of contradictions that I couldn’t take any longer. Comrades would consistently fail to do their assigned tasks, show up to paper sales and meetings, and thus the burden of labor would fall on the shoulders of a few. People who did not speak up in meetings were singled out behind closed doors, as if rattling off chance words had more merit than carefully weighed and well-thought out talking points. Senior cadre would take detailed and often intrusive notes on newer members, and leadership meetings often turned into inquisitions on why select people didn’t agree on certain points. Members from more affluent backgrounds would speak as members of the proletariat in public, and go home to snort cocaine.
Most heinously, an organization that touted itself on eradicating sexism and transforming the structures of human relations had its healthy share of chauvinists. Members would cheat on their partners, and a fairly prominent senior member used one of my friends as a sexual object—and I saw a few complaints about these practices go unheeded. My participation in Asian American organizations and volunteer groups on campus was questioned as playing into identity politics and reformism, or, at other times, a way to scope out other recruits of color. The attention paid towards bringing in black, Latino, Middle Eastern, and Asian radicals into a mostly white organization was remarkable in one vein, but also carried with it the uncertain taste that people of color were overly seen as “bonus points.” For an organization that called for the overthrow of capitalism and the fundamental upheaval of society, the ISO felt oddly confining, detached, other-worldly. I sat through four-hour meetings and lost touch with friends. So I bounced.
Yeah, this world needs to be wrenched from the hands of the profiteers and the corporate giants, no doubt. And certainly, it’s going to take some serious militancy on multiple fronts to get to that point. But I doubt we’ll get there if folks feel trapped by the forces that are there to purportedly liberate them. And progressive endeavors come in many forms, under myriad opinions and theories of what works. I’d be lying if I had a real sense of the steps it’ll take to bring the Powers That Be to their knees. Until we get there, though, I’ll be in it however I can, Shachtmanite-Trotskyist or not.
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
-
This week's entry is from Advocacy Co-Chair Dorothy Young!------------------
Maybe they should ban Ethnic Studies, after all.“The ethnic studies project is rooted in activism, with an agenda of social justice set by marginalized peoples.” – Professor Sharon Elise
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
-
This week, we have two entries: the first from Co-Chair Christina Chen, and the second from Finance Chair Johnny Vo!---------------------
For the past week or so there's been a calamitous uproar over actress Sharon Stone's suggestion that China's earthquake may have been some kind of cosmic restitution for how its government has mishandled Tibet. Here's a snippet of those remarks, the original footage of which is still widely circulating on YouTube:
"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else.
And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma -- when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?"
Stone's comments created quite a stir on the Internet and in Chinese news media. I didn't expect anything less than an uproar, as of course, her comments had been cold, insensitive, heartless, demeaning, and (as if ways to insult Sharon Stone haven't run the gamut)- just plain idiotic. What I was really impressed by, though, was the rapid-fire response Chinese internet users coordinated within just hours of the video's release. Hell hath no fury like the swift and exacting vengeance of Chinese purchasing power! Within hours of the video's debut, thousands of Chinese consumers had signed onto a boycott of all products attached to the actress, ranging from cosmetic creams peddled by French fashion house Christian Dior and its parent company, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (which counts China as one of its most important markets) to Stone's movies (hmm, won't be a problem for me. Has she done any good movies lately? Oh...uh, sorry to all you Catwoman fans out there!). Dior pulled all advertisements featuring Stone. On Wednesday, organizers at the Shanghai International Film Festival, one of the largest film festivals in East Asia, announced that they'd declared Stone a "persona non grata", banning her from this year's event. And if that didn't add enough salt to Stone's wounds (her contriteness is being disputed: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/fashion/01stone.html?ref ), in perhaps what may constitute the most dire threat to Sharon Stone's welfare and livelihood yet, my parents got pissed off. My mom swore to never watch any of her movies or patronize any of her products. Without a doubt, if my dad- with his uncanny ability to predict the future with his rarefied insights into the fickle world of celebritydom- is right, Sharon Stone will be "out of work for the rest of her life".=fashion
Well, while I'm not so sure about that (Basic Instinct 3, YESSSSIR) - I'm not surprised that this still hasn't blown over, and that Asians and Asian Americans alike are genuinely upset over Stone's remarks. Though I am not as in-tune to China-bashing as my parents are, I found myself taking offense to Sharon Stone's comments. And though I attribute this more to my revulsion towards the disturbing implications that Stone's remarks held for whole of humanity (than, say, to the fact that these comments had been directed toward the Chinese people) it was at *this* moment that I realized that I'd become much more sensitive to reports of pervasive anti-Asian prejudice in our media culture. It seems as if, even before the Burma and Sichuan disasters had invited an additional layer of international scrutiny into their country's state of affairs, that the Western media had become increasingly fixated on the vacillating lots of Asian countries and the problems that plague them. (Note: I am not a Chinese nationalist [and of course, nationalist is such an exaggeration of terms as well. After the earthquake, accusations of "patriotic fervor" were flung around so capriciously. What about America post 9-11? Such is the tenor of countries dealing with post-traumatic stress.] I am not gonna claim, and will never claim that China's reputation's squeaky clean because, like any fledging capitalist government confronting decades of social, political and economic turmoil - its tarnish has been indisputable.) I've never been very attentive to China's political affairs. In fact, in the past, I've considered myself indifferent to accusations of anti-Asian bias; I shrugged off every accusation, every angry retort my dad has up his sleeve, ready to fling at any journalist reporting about China's problems with... er everything.
But imo things have definitely changed. Over the past few months the anti-Asian bias has been almost impossible to ignore. With every food scare, toy recall, environmental assessment, accusations that somehow Asians are causing every rice and fuel shortage that "disproportionately impacts" America, manufacturing inspections scandal, castigations of Chinese political shortcomings, demonstrations for democracy, revelations about the imprisonment of political prisoners, and human rights-related rebuke that rolls along, the net of pathologization and dehumanization that's been cast by the American media, and by extension, the American government is ensnaring more and more American critics within its meshes. And although disliking China does not automatically equate to an assumption of anti-Asian bias or racism, portrayals of Asians as a frigid people- incapable of self-governance, subject to mass neurosis, twirled around the iron thumbs of Communist authorities to do their mindless bidding– have been occurring with alarming frequency. I am concerned – nay, adamant, that the misconceptions and dehumanization of Asians abroad have and will continue to have a huge impact on Asian Americans at home. The net has been pulled over not only those living in Asia, but also over Asian Americans whose very identities are mediated by representations of consumptive Asian goods. As Jack Kuo Wei Tchen asserts in his book "New York before Chinatown: Orientalism and the Shaping of American Culture", in 18th Century America, before substantial Asian waves of migrants arrived to American shores, "desired Chinese-style luxury goods and ideas, imbued with symbolic meanings, were integral to the formulation of a new American individual and nation – an identity to be further reconstituted in the process of exchange itself"(Tschen, 24). Once direct trade and interactions between real people began, objects no longer served as proxies between American and East Asian civilizations; American admiration of Chinese opulence and "exotic consumables" quickly turned into disgust for China's inclinations toward tyranny, despotism, patricianism, and Confucian antiquity as America struggled to define itself post-Independence, and to seek out and achieve its occidental destiny. If this all seems much too abstract, let me provide a contemporary example of such phenomena: the conflation of Asian culture with Chinese take-out, and recent reports of large percentages of Chinese American restaurants failing quality-control assessments.
Imagine my horror when I signed into my facebook account months ago, and saw that a non-APA acquaintance of mine had posted a facebook note with pictures of fried rats and chunks of dog meat, warning his friends to be painstakingly careful in eating out at Chinese restaurants. This acquaintance f mine believed that Chinese restaurants were trying to trick patrons into buying repugnant, cheap ingredients, disguised as "normal" American food. The comments were an unabashed orgy of oriental othering, conveying a sense of ignorance that was simply astounding; comments were made along the lines of "the Chinese are disgusting", and "never trust Asians, esp. with what you eat" and "Chinese people are dirty"... I kid you not. Furthermore, most of the commentary had drawn no distinction between Asians and Asian Americans (or even Chinese vs. other Asian ethnicities, for that matter) in passing judgment on the groups of people in question.
As perpetual foreigners, Asian Americans will always be susceptible to the stereotypical qualities ascribed to people who (however much they bear a phenotypical resemblance to us) live in countries that most of us consider "foreign", save our parents and our own migrant affiliations with such native lands. If the leap of "this is affecting Asians exclusively" to "this is affecting APA's too" well, seems like a stretch, than I'd recommend going beyond simply referring to perhaps the most common, institutionalized example of how U.S. political encounters with Asian countries and/or its disfavoring of Asian regimes have directly impacted perceptions of APA's - the internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, as their allegiances to America were questioned and ties to Japan were closely investigated. Consider the forced special registration of more than 85,000 South Asians, Arab Americans, and Middle Eastern Americans post 9-11; how Cold War-era accusations (leveled against the United States when it was imposing it's "freedom on the third world") of how the U.S. had never successfully overcome its own specters of racism and imperialism, facilitated the passage of sweeping domestic immigration acts; the spike of hate crimes committed against South Asian American communities during heated debates over the outsourcing of "American" jobs to South Asia in the late 90's; and tragically, in a case of mistaken ethnic identification, racial scapegoating, and sheer bigotry, the motives that prompted Ronald Ebens' and Michael Nitz's murder of Vincent Chin. America is a place where we are expected to pay penance for actions committed by other countries. APA's, it seems, will never be permitted to fully integrate into the American mainstream; society tells us that we are forever doomed to be bound to how Asian countries have been assessed by the U.S government- as allies, acquaintances, enemies, etc. It comes as no coincidence that this purported bias and prejudice against China has been aligned with the parallel trajectory of China's ascendant star in a time when, according to zero-sum rules of the political game, China will be perceived as the U.S.'s primary competitor in the constant need to establish international precedence. How easily, and perhaps subliminally, can hostility and resentment slip into the media coverage of our biggest competitors.
And finally, Sharon Stone's comments also get at another pet peeve of mine that's been bothering me for a long time, which is how white activists have framed the "question" of Tibet. Tibet, which white activists have long seized as a canvas in which they can project vivid re-imaginings of White Rescue, have moved on from fantasies of re-educating our "little brown brothers" in the Philippines (and other projects of white tutelage) to saving the people of Tibet, substituting yesterday's sweltering, uncivilized jungles with the dreams of friendly, peaceful plateaus peppered by temples and monasteries that ripple with Buddhist incantations and yoga mats. Stone and many others of which I (if the internet forums and blogs I see cheering her on her comments are representative of what at least a minority of these people feel) believe are dehumanizing their enemies, devaluing human lives while defending the lives of others, and compromising their cause with actions that smack of blatant hypocrisy. Forget that people of color and disenfranchised communities in the United States are institutionally oppressed, living the effects of a system shaped by years of societal and statutory marginalization; the plight of the unseen, unheard, and stigmatized in this country seem to carry little weight. Instead, many of these activists have looked to the teeming masses of Asia, sidetracking hundreds of years of inter-country complex history and tensions to declare that they have solutions to all of Tibet's problems which, is no less of a feat than to dismantle the ugly, "oppressive" monolith that is the PRC. Again, China should not be immune from criticism, but I find that this reversion to propaganda that hearkens back to the Cold War to be frightening and dangerous. Cultural relativists in the U.S. have co-opted Tibet's image to tuck neatly within the confines of what is constructed as socially "good." How patronizing... and familiar.
Here's to hoping that history won't repeat itself again, though based on precedent, I'd advise young APA's (as journalist and Asian American activist extraordinaire Helen Zia suggested at Columbia's Asian Pacific American Awareness Month's opening reception) to prepare for the impending backlash that will follow if the loci of international power happens to shift, however slightly, to the East. No doubt, Americans will be bracing themselves to fend off a new era of yellow peril, directing their frustrations and resentment to not only Asians abroad, but against brown and yellow skinned Americans at home.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Century ---------------------
AAPI Health Disparities: How’s Your Health?
According to the most recent census numbers released this past month, Asian Americans have reached 14 million, about 5% of the total United States population (301.6 million). Population models predict that by 2050, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (AAPI) will compose approximately 11% of the total population at ~41 million people.
Published health research data AAPI is severely inadequate. For data that does exist, it is heavily focused on Asian Americans of Japanese or Chinese heritage. Unfortunately, this data is not a particularly useful tool since the AAPI population remains the most diverse of minority groups in the US.
In the National Vital Statistics Report of 2007, there is a list that includes the top 10 leading causes of death in the Asian or Pacific Islander (API) population. Unique to APIs, when compared to the other groups (White, Black, or American Indian/Alaska Native), cancer is listed as the leading cause of death. Statistical data suggests that part of the problem stems from inadequate screenings in the AAPI population (Asian American women have the lowest cancer screenings rates and are usually diagnosed at a later stage compared to other racial and ethnic groups); thus, diagnosis and treatment is delayed. One of the major problems is the inadequate availability of appropriate services for the subpopulations in the AAPI communities. Not only do some groups not have access to necessary healthcare, but language, income, transportation, and education pose further barriers.
Furthermore, mental health problems in the Asian American community may be going undiagnosed and untreated due to social stigmas in this population. Asian women aged 75 years and over have the highest suicide rate in the country compared with any other population in that age group. In 15 - 24 year olds from 2002 to 2005, suicide ranked as the third leading cause of death. Other concerns in the AAPI population include a high risk of osteoporosis, prevalence of Hepatitis B, and the increasing rate of diabetes.
With everything else we worry about, we should not forget about our health. Go to the doctor once in awhile, read up on relevant health issues, get screened for common diseases, and just talk to someone. We can get so caught up in the chaos that is daily life, struggling to make sense of things and making sure everyone else is alright. But sometimes we can forget one major thing – to take care of ourselves. And make your mom go too.
naascon
-
- Name: NAASCon
- Member Since: 9/1/2004
Weblog Archives
Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save"
above and refresh the page.
