Extremism in the “Inter-Racial Debate”
32 Responses | Leave a Comment »
“Woman” is my slave name; feminism will give me freedom to seek some other identity altogether.
– Ann Snitow, “A Gender Diary,” Conflicts in Feminism
Black men walking wit’ white girls on they arms
I be mad at ‘em as if I know they moms
Told to go beyond the surface, a person’s a person
When we lessen our women our condition seems to worsen
The weary cursin’ the sky
– Common, “Real People”
I never dared be radical when young
For fear it would make me conservative when old.
– Robert Frost
After a long period of avoiding any frontpage discussion of the subject, I felt compelled to clarify our position on inter-racial sexual relations in this feature. I wanted to have a sane, rational, and compassionate discussion on the topic, point out a few false or misleading arguments, and make what I thought was a reasonable comment on the issue.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a portion of the Asian-American community has called our position “extreme.” I’m told that Fallout Central has even labeled us so in a podcast.
Extreme?
Essentially, our position goes something like this: inter-racial diversity and romance is good, people have the right to date and love whoever they wish, but if they wish to become a symbol and stand for something, in this case, Asian pride and Asian rights, then they have a responsibility to live Asian pride and Asian rights, they have a responsibility to show Asian pride and Asian rights.
Drawing an analogy, in the legal context, courts and administrative tribunals recognize that they must not only be impartial, but they must also appear to be impartial. Even if a judge is of the utmost integrity, if she is connected to a participant in a case, if her life is structured such that she has a significant connection with one side of a trial, she cannot participate in that trial, for fear of losing both the confidence of the public and of the participants in the case.
Similarly, here, an advocate must not only believe in what they’re advocating for, they must show it.
Does this sound terribly extreme?
When I look to either side of me, here are the positions I’m seeing:
1. You should never engage in inter-racial relationships. If you do, you’re a sellout and a traitor and you’re slapping your ancestors in the face.
2. You have the right to date and marry whoever you want, whenever you want, no matter the consequences of your actions, no matter the responsibilities to others you have taken on.
And here I am saying that, generally, there is no question that you have the fundamental rights and freedoms to do and say what you want, when you want, but sometimes you have responsibilities that conflict with those rights and freedoms, and it would be wise and compassionate to find a balance between those rights and responsibilities.
Instead, I hear ideologies.
On one side of me, I’m hearing “Fuck whitey, and fuck you for fucking whitey, you sellout race-traitor whore!”
On the other side, I’m hearing, “You’re not the boss of me, I can do whatever I want whenever I want, and fuck you for trying to control my life!”
Hmm. Who sounds extreme here?
I hear a chorus of tenor and bass voices, boys whose sexuality and self-esteem have been damaged and distorted by racism, lashing out in fear and rage and deep insecurity. And singing with them, in perverse harmony, I hear a chorus of sopranos and altos, girls screaming like adolescents, not yet aware that every new right, every degree of freedom gained through maturity and hard work is accompanied by a greater responsibility.
And they both have a point, they really do. But neither is really hearing the other, so focused are they on their own melodies, and on their own hurt.
You both have a point. But your points are end points, and there is a very long line, a very complex spectrum, between them.
I’m saying to both of you, “You have the right to take care of yourself. I would ask you to do nothing less. When you’re doing it, just keep in mind that there might come a time in your life when have to take care of others before yourself.”
And you scream back, “NO! You OWE your LIFE, your BODY, your MIND, to your PEOPLE!” or “NO! I don’t HAVE to do ANYTHING! Don’t you DARE tell me WHAT TO DO!”
Who has the extreme voice?
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
nskripchun
5:15 am | Aug 08, 2007Wise words, Brother D.
I just hope our fellow AAs out there in Internet-Land are listening.
howstrange
5:30 am | Aug 08, 2007What’s sad is that it’s simply a matter of understanding and acknowledging the concerns of the opposite side that will create a bridge towards a middle ground, or at the very least, allow for an agreement to disagree. Of course seeing things in black and white is the natural order of the “extreme” and because of that, if you’re not with them 100%, you’re against them 100%.
Vahz
8:43 am | Aug 08, 2007D, thanks for putting it into words so well.
Hopefully you’ll be able to attend one of Fallout Central’s podcasts and clarify this position.
I’ve been saying it all along that the reason why this problem hasn’t be “fixed” is that both sides are too busy talking and neither is willing to listen to each other.
Scowl
8:56 am | Aug 08, 2007I really think that anyone who doesn’t get it the first time around won’t get it now, either.
What’s pretty much happened is that we’ve gotten lumped into the “IR is evil!” group. From what I’ve seen, it seems like you pretty much get put into that category by default unless you say (and say it loud) that no one should ever say anything non-supportive about IR. And the “IR is evil” guys are happy to have us because they’ll take what they can get.
Ike
10:55 am | Aug 08, 2007D, you’re extreme because you just called everyone else extreme. =)
Dialectic
11:07 am | Aug 08, 2007Haha, extreme like a jalapeno Dorito!
It’s amazing, the distorted mindsets and polarized stances that get set up in American-style political discourse. No wonder Bush did so well with his “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists!” argument.
Maxjulian
1:58 pm | Aug 08, 2007Dichotomized thinking is why we’re in the mess we’re in today. The ability to hold two or more competing thoughts and resolve them, harmonize them without having to disown all but the favored one, requires great sensitivity and maturity. We don’t breed for those attributes in this culture. The people with the shakiest identities/psyches/egos are the ringleaders of extremist thought around IR…though they masquerade as strong, vital race warriors.
In order to feel alive, relevant or important, they are compelled to create an “us versus them” world, circling the wagons with likeminded folks and character assasinating anyone who holds a more ‘openminded’ view. Thus, its very important for these kind of folks to position themselves as arbiters of who is “real” and who is not among their tribe.
Dialectic
3:20 pm | Aug 08, 2007Thanks very much for your comment, Maxjulian! I wholeheartedly agree. The world has grown so fractured and polarized, physically and intellectually, much of it a result of the current American political landscape. Resolving opposing positions, harmonizing and integrating them, is, I believe, the greatest task of our day.
I’ve also written a follow-up piece here:
http://www.thefighting44s.com/archives/2007/08/08/extremism-in-race-perception-and-race-based-groups/
Maxjulian
9:06 pm | Aug 08, 2007Dialectic, don’t know if you’ve ever checked out one of my favorite blogs: racialrealist.wordpress.com. The new phrase of the day there is “de-natured black folks.” I am proudly denatured, meaning that I have dared to sleep with and even married a white woman - once. The fact that I have come to the same conclusion as you - that as a race advocate/thinker it is necessary to embody that belief in word and deed - does not remove the scarlet letter from my kente cloth. I am forever a race traitor and have been excommunicated by the tru-black-cabal that frequents that blog. They see themselves as the ‘Black Vatican.’
Dialectic
12:29 am | Aug 09, 2007Just checked the blog out and left a positive comment on their “ASSIMILATE IF YOU MUST, BUT PLEASE BE HONEST ABOUT IT!” piece.
I’m gonna see if I can add them to our frontpage! (Hopefully there won’t be crazy shit on that blog that I haven’t seen that makes us look more extreme than people think we are already.)
Thanks so much for sharing a bit of your life with us here. I hope you’re at least half-joking about the scarlet letter on the kente cloth! If anything, we could spin it like you’ve been tested by the hot white flames of love, and even if you “failed” there’s always room for redemption ;)
MelaninManson
5:31 pm | Aug 09, 2007Dialectic, I find your position unhelpful for race activists in racial minority groups. The implication that a person can’t display “Asian pride and Asian rights” unless their personal relationships reflect intra-communal romance appears controlling at best and dangerous usually. It’s a flagrantly myopic point that does not grapple with modern multicultural America’s interactions with race.
Your position asserts that those race activists who promote the uplift and empowerment of their own group can be politically undercut if their personal lives - having nothing to do with their intellectual activism - promote a complexity that certain members of their racial demographic do not approve.
Extreme? Perhaps. Illogical? Certainly.
I believe this position only fosters dissension and conflict in minority communities, because it attempts social control over people who share a racial identity. Dialectic, adherents to your position use social ostracism (or the threat thereof) to shrink the range of meaningful life choices, all in the name of racial unity and community uplift, for other members of their racial community concerned with the political uplift of their race.
Honestly, the people who characterized this position as sexist were correct; historically, women endured the backlash from this position far in excess of men. (Certainly the history of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements among African Americans reflect this sad effect.) A useful question here asks why it’s much more likely to find Asian American female activists questioned for their interracial relationships in comparison to Asian American male activists.
Dialectic, I strongly disagree with your comical attempt to characterize two factions in this debate as extreme and childish polar opposites. You do not express a moderate view here, Dialectic, as your position denies freedom to those willing to advocate in favor of their race while they date interracially.
Because you value those people’s sexual choices over their intellectual perspectives and political activism, you’ve chosen social control over members of your race over working for the uplift of your race. No worthwhile race activist can respect that choice, in my opinion.
Racial communities are not composed of a monolithic mass of identical, interchangeable mechanical animals. Color matters, but people of color can not assume that everyone with their shade should adhere to a certain predefined list of social behaviors. In order to respect the diversity and individualism inherent within racial groups, Dialectic, we should all respect the diversity in our public and personal choices.
If our political leaders choose to ignore the diversity of our racial groups, then they cannot represent us effectively. This isn’t 1965: a Black leader today can be a preacher or an atheist, a homosexual or a heterosexual, a Pullman porter or a university professor, a man or a woman. Further, any of those people can date and marry who they choose while they advocate for the uplift and betterment of Black people.
Dialectic, the only relevant criteria to evaluate any race activist involves what their activism provides the race, period. Anything else remains inconsequential.
Dialectic
7:16 pm | Aug 09, 2007Hi Melanin, thanks for your comments! I’m sorry I seem to have offended you; I actually just left some comments on your site, and I agree (I think) with the points you raised in your post about the Lynching song.
I’ve already addressed, I think, the spirit of the points you bring up here in previous features and comments. Still, given your well-considered response, I do feel that I ought to respond as best I can, albeit briefly.
You say:
“Dialectic, I find your position unhelpful for race activists in racial minority groups. The implication that a person can’t display “Asian pride and Asian rights” unless their personal relationships reflect intra-communal romance appears controlling at best and dangerous usually. It’s a flagrantly myopic point that does not grapple with modern multicultural America’s interactions with race.”
It’s not controlling at all. I’m not imposing anything on anyone. I’m pointing out consequences. And one consequence is mistrust, and another is sending conflicting signals.
I won’t take your criticism that I’m unable to grapple with American multiculturalism personally; my approach is actually quite layered, and accounts for subjective and objective approaches to knowledge as well as the acknowledgement of developmental psychology and the notion that morality and cognition evolves. I suggest you look up “Integral Theory and Practice” for more on this.
“Your position asserts that those race activists who promote the uplift and empowerment of their own group can be politically undercut if their personal lives - having nothing to do with their intellectual activism - promote a complexity that certain members of their racial demographic do not approve.”
You make a false distinction between their personal lives and their “intellectual activism.” It’s all integrated, bud. I thought you actually agreed with the “personal as political” stance in your post on the lynch song, but I suppose I mis-read you.
“Extreme? Perhaps. Illogical? Certainly.”
I’m not sure who you’re referring to here. As I’ve explained in three posts, I’m not the extreme one, and I think my thoughts are fairly well-reasoned.
“I believe this position only fosters dissension and conflict in minority communities, because it attempts social control over people who share a racial identity. Dialectic, adherents to your position use social ostracism (or the threat thereof) to shrink the range of meaningful life choices, all in the name of racial unity and community uplift, for other members of their racial community concerned with the political uplift of their race.”
Uh, no, no one’s threatening social ostracism when they say this. Nor does it foster dissension and conflict. What many critics who use this argument don’t seem to get is that the dissension and conflict are already there. The social ostracism is already there. Discussing this or expressing this opinion is simply bringing it to the fore. Dissension and ostracism cut both ways: multiculturalists and pluralists can be just as vicious, isolating, and dissenting as ethnocentrists (I count myself as neither, at least as these terms are traditionally understood).
“Honestly, the people who characterized this position as sexist were correct; historically, women endured the backlash from this position far in excess of men. (Certainly the history of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements among African Americans reflect this sad effect.) A useful question here asks why it’s much more likely to find Asian American female activists questioned for their interracial relationships in comparison to Asian American male activists.”
I’ve addressed this at length, and you don’t seem very familiar with the contours of this particular topic within the Asian-American community. It’s “much more likely” because Asian American females, activists or not, do it much more. That’s all. There was an occurrence a while ago, at a Black college in Illinois (I think it’s there, but I’m not entirely sure which state), where the Black women were so angry and frustrated with all the Black men going out with white women that they actually put up a “Wall of Shame” in their dorms with photos of all these Black men. I don’t recall too many people calling them sexist.
“Dialectic, I strongly disagree with your comical attempt to characterize two factions in this debate as extreme and childish polar opposites. You do not express a moderate view here, Dialectic, as your position denies freedom to those willing to advocate in favor of their race while they date interracially.”
The comical attempt is not that far from the truth. The culture of narcissism and victimization in the advocate and academic communities disgusts me. You might disagree that this culture exists at all, and we’d have to agree to disagree.
“Because you value those people’s sexual choices over their intellectual perspectives and political activism, you’ve chosen social control over members of your race over working for the uplift of your race. No worthwhile race activist can respect that choice, in my opinion.”
This is a false interpretation of my position. I don’t value their sexual choices over their activism at all. I don’t see where you get that from. I get the feeling you may not have read my pieces in their entirety, nor my responses to criticisms in the comments sections. I’m simply saying that they’re undermining the message. Of course you can still do good while you’re sleeping with a white man; hell, with access to that sort of privilege, you’ll probably be able to do more politically than you could sleeping with a white woman, black, Asian, Indian, or purple person. Not quite the point I’m making.
“Racial communities are not composed of a monolithic mass of identical, interchangeable mechanical animals. Color matters, but people of color can not assume that everyone with their shade should adhere to a certain predefined list of social behaviors. In order to respect the diversity and individualism inherent within racial groups, Dialectic, we should all respect the diversity in our public and personal choices.”
I’m more than aware of what you’re saying. I recommend you read my Feature discussing the complexities of race, stereotyping, and socially-constructed knowledge. I respect diversity and individualism. I don’t respect rampant pathological individualism at the expense of communal goals and social responsibilities. I respect balance and consideration.
“If our political leaders choose to ignore the diversity of our racial groups, then they cannot represent us effectively. This isn’t 1965: a Black leader today can be a preacher or an atheist, a homosexual or a heterosexual, a Pullman porter or a university professor, a man or a woman. Further, any of those people can date and marry who they choose while they advocate for the uplift and betterment of Black people.”
This is rhetoric. I’m not espousing 1965 values at all. I’m simply pointing out social and political consequences. I’m not limiting rights, either. I would NEVER limit rights to date/ marry whoever you want. That’s disgusting and facist. I’m just saying that if you want to effectively achieve a certain thing, you might want to consider doing it a certain way. A lot of Black people, incidentally, agree with me.
“Dialectic, the only relevant criteria to evaluate any race activist involves what their activism provides the race, period. Anything else remains inconsequential.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree here. It’s all wrapped up together. Thankfully, as we’ve recently seen, I can’t rail against gay rights if I’m sleeping with them in Nevada!
reappropriate
1:54 am | Aug 10, 2007(This site ATE my first comment after about twenty minutes trying to compose it. So I’m re-typing. Excuse me if I’m grumpy.)
D, first of all, let me say that I hope there are no hard feelings between us regarding our current debate. I do appreciate your willingness to address the IR disparity, and though we have serious disagreements, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue.
Here is my response to this post:
http://www.reappropriate.com/?p=804
Also, one of your users, Jaehwan, asked me to come here and ask you this question. I’m quoting it here:
“I’m an Asian woman dating a black guy, and I am an advocate. I run reappropriate. Do I have a right to be an advocate?”
Let me elaborate on that last part: do you think that you are justified in dismissing my activism (online and offline) based on my long-term relationship with a non-Asian male — a relationship you don’t know the particulars of and really shouldn’t be your business to make assumptions about? What is your response to those who have characterized me as a “sellout whore”? Do you think, by extension of this post, that I should shut up and stop my “advocacy” because no one should take what I have to say seriously, anyways?
And why do you think your definition of “authenticity” should trump mine? If so, why?
Also, do you plan on publicly disavowing the adovocacy work of Ron Takaki, Norm Mineta, Helen Zia, B.D. Wong and George Takei? Do you think Bruce Lee is an inappropriate role model for advocates of a politicized Asian American movement (re: Angry Asian Man)?
Thank you for your time.
howstrange
5:19 am | Aug 10, 2007Jenn, I’ve read the responses on your blog and you do strike me as someone who wants a middle ground. A few on your site who are anti-Dialectic tend to not want it though. I hope this upcoming exchange with D will lead some good things. As for those extremists on the Male side of the equation who yell “sellout whore”, D’s response is usually the boot, they get banned. It’s good to understand where they’re coming from and be sensitive to their pain, but if allowed unchecked, it will infest those who are becoming racially aware like a nasty virus, and we’ll get unhealthy communities, like MM.com.
JadeDragon
5:48 am | Aug 10, 2007Jenn, I don’t think Dialectic is saying that an advocate NEEDS to be “authentic” by dating intra-racially in order to engage in racial activism. All he is really saying is that while your intentions may be pure, it is difficult for Asian-Americans who have felt the brunt of rejection from other Asian-Americans to fully comprehend the true meaning of your message if the image doesn’t quite add up to the words. In fact, all voices supporting Asian-American activism are appreciated, be they from yellow, brown, black, white, green or purple people.
It’s just that not all people are able to sift out the differences between medium and message as clearly as people like us, who are in the midst of developing political consciousness, are able to do. Many folks, when they see an Asian-American advocate dating a non-Asian while epousing racial equality, will give in to a knee-jerk reaction of “OMG, s/he’s not being real”, and therefore disregard the content of your message, even if it has merit. Appearances mean a lot in politics, witness the famous televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, where Kennedy won over the people who watched it on television, while Nixon won over the radio listeners.
So, while I do agree with Dialectic on his points, I suppose his stance might seem a little harsh. But, truly, an advocate, like a celebrity, cannot control what the public will think of the individual, and maybe that should be one of the major points of this debate, rather than “who are you to disavow my work because of whom I date?”
In addition, I’ve worked in Asian LGBT activism before, and when it comes to combining sexual politics with racial/ethnic identities, it’s a lot harder because everyone will criticise no matter what, internally and externally. I would say that Asian(-American) LGBT activists are doubly disadvantaged because not only do they have to deal with racial identity and traditional Asian cultures that may not accept queerness, they also have to deal with heterosexist structures that permeate practically of all society. Sex is an enormous component of queer activism, and thus, it’s very difficult for queer Asians, especially males, to fight against racist ideologies because it intertwines with sexual stereotypes of effeminate Asian men too easily. I don’t think anyone intelligent here would disavow queer Asian activism because it’s very relevant to combatting the sexual stereotypes that surround Asian(-Americans). Without any positive gay Asian role models, we’ll always have that “potato queen” thing, among others, over our heads.
reappropriate
2:11 pm | Aug 10, 2007howstrange:
“A few on your site who are anti-Dialectic tend to not want it though.”
I agree that there are folks on every side of a debate who may not be seeking compromise, but it may not be because they are being obstinant, but rather because they feel very deeply about their side of the debate. I hope there aren’t people who are just “anti-Dialectic” — I haven’t encountered that p.o.v. openly, but then again, I’m not a member of F44 so I don’t know anything about your community’s internal politics.
“As for those extremists on the Male side of the equation who yell “sellout whore”, D’s response is usually the boot, they get banned.”
That is good to hear. I did not know that about F44, especially because F44 is commonly cited as a “good community” by the MM-ites. Kudos to your moderating staff for that policy!
JadeDragon:
I suppose we disagree about our interpretation of Dialectic’s position. I agree with you about the unavoidable emphasis placed on appearance, and your example of Nixon/Kennedy is as good as my example would’ve been of Kuccinich’s unelectability. And certainly, as a “public figure”, no one can avoid the fact that some people simply will not accept them for reasons beyond their control. When I argue that every person is/can be an advocate, I am by definition saying that everyone is brining a unique point of view to the table — perspectives that may not always be immediately accetable to everyone.
Take your example of queer APIA issues, which I think in some respects mirror feminist APIA issues. In both cases, we have to worry about the dichotomy that pits racial and sexual/gender identity against one another. And in both cases we face strong community-wide stigmas against the sexual/gender politics that create challenges for getting the message heard. And yes, frequently, we’ll encounter a knee-jerk response that dismisses our politics — but I think it’s critical to remember that that is NOT an appropriate response. We shouldn’t suppress our voices or accept that knee-jerk response as par for the course based on homophobia in your case or sexism in mine, simply because it might be “human nature”. We shouldn’t rationalize that internalized prejudice as a necessary evil; we should use that response as a launchpad for challenging the oppressions we hope to dismantle.
However, ultimately, I think I agree with you. But, I am concerned that what you are arguing is not the stance Dialectic takes. In his prior post, Dialectic wrote:
“In the case of AA advocacy specifically, however, I do not agree that Asian females and males ought to pursue whatever romantic relationship they wish.”
I think that statement and subsequent explanations establish a mutual exclusivity between the advocate and those who are free to pursue whatever romantic relationships they wish. And so, I do not think it is an illogical extension to ask if an advocate who DOES pursue their own romantic relationship should be disavowed.
JadeDragon, you write:
“Without any positive gay Asian role models, we’ll always have that “potato queen” thing, among others, over our heads.”
That’s true, but I wonder if we shouldn’t distinguish between the advocate and the role model. I think Al Sharpton has some good messages for the African American community, but I wouldn’t call him a role model. He would be a poor advocate for healing Black-Asian interracial tensions, given his early statements targeting Asians. Advocates, by definition, are folks that have a good message to spread, particularly about civil rights and liberties; they are defined by the issues they advocate for. Role models lead by example but don’t necessarily have to advocate anything, advocates are putting forth good ideas, but unless they are preaching a lifestyle change, I think they should be held to the standard of those ideas alone. I think part of the problem here is the conflation of advocate and role model, when we rarely actually see those two archetypes in the same person.
minbo
2:18 pm | Aug 10, 2007As a longtime member of this forum, while I agree with Dialectic on his stance to IR in general, I disagree with his stance on the role of IR for an Asian activist. If, for example, someone is an activist for Immigrant rights, or a leader in aiding battered minority women or other such nuanced role, then it does not matter to me they are in an IR, unless it turns out the other person is some freaky ‘phile, but I think thats not abnormal for any socially conscious person of any ethnicity or culture.
If you try to advocate against Asian male emasculation, then you start to tread upon shaky ground for me. I actually don’t have a personal problem with it and would not look twice and certainly you have the right to do so, and your relationship may be a beautiful and wonderful thing. The fact is that there will be enough Asian men who feel alienated by this that will compromise your ability to advocate for them. Sure it may be a case where they cut off their nose to spite their face, but they will do it anyway. While I have no personal issue with an advocate in an IR, I do have an issue with an advocate who is dividing the people that they are trying to advocate for.
While some people may be swayed by reasoned debate, ultimately it is futile to argue if they have any moral or logical reason to feel offended by seeing an advocate in an IR. They are offended, logically they may see that the have no reason to take offense, but that doesn’t stop the emotion. Of course logically, many of them may not see that they are wrong either, which of course will not stop the emotion either! If I use a racially or sexually charged term to refer to someone, I can logically explain all day why I was morally in the clear, but that does not heal the hurt or make the indignation that my words used disappear.
MelaninManson
7:04 pm | Aug 10, 2007Dialectic, I can’t say I’m offended by your recent writing on this topic, even though I probably should be. Full disclosure: I am a Black man. Jenn from Reappropriate.com has enjoyed a relationship with me for the past eight years. We are very happy together, and I find it reprehensible that every so often members of her racial community online attempt to dismiss her race activism and intellectual production because of her connection with me.
It’s disgusting; never in eight years has an Asian American man or woman challenged Jenn’s activism or public statements over her connection with me to our faces. I guess people aren’t that crazy.
So when I find online diatribes that disapprove of Jenn’s writing and activism simply because of who she’s dating, I consider them useless. African Americans have a long history of ignoring and/or marginalizing effective protest leaders and concerned intellectuals because of personal choices made in their personal lives, and I don’t appreciate this odd attempt to cast Jenn as an Asian American Bayard Rustin. Dialectic, I’ve tried to treat your writing with respect, even though I honestly disagree.
“It’s not controlling at all. I’m not imposing anything on anyone. I’m pointing out consequences. And one consequence is mistrust, and another is sending conflicting signals.” - Dialectic
“Thankfully, as we’ve recently seen, I can’t rail against gay rights if I’m sleeping with them in Nevada!” - Dialectic
This only makes sense if people are never challenged to divorce the personal lives of public leaders from their public activism and politics. The only people who consistently blur that necessary dichotomy are moral demagogues who argue that the lifestyles of others deserve public sanction and condemnation. Dialectic, your comparison with hypocritical anti-gay demagogues who lead gay lives in secret like Rev. Ted Haggard makes no sense here, as Jenn’s never argued against the full exercise of any groups freedom and liberty and equality. Frankly, there’s nothing hypocritical about an Asian American activist dating a non-Asian person.
Certainly, I’m eager to gain your answer to Jenn’s question. Are you encouraging Asian Americans to reject the useful activism of Ron Takaki, Norm Mineta, Helen Zia, B.D. Wong and George Takei? Doesn’t your position serve only to divide the Asian American activist community instead of utilizing everyone willing to help?
jaehwan
7:38 pm | Aug 10, 2007Jenn,
Nice to see you on the other side! Thanks for coming.
I think I agree with JadeDragon, howstrange, and Minbo. And I guess I agree with you too.
FYI: D and the rest of the mods have actually banned a number of militant MM’ers who threw around terms like “sellout whore.” They just didn’t fit the culture.
Melanin:
Nice to see you here too. Thanks for coming too!
Just a couple things that I’d like to comment on. You wrote:
“I find it reprehensible that every so often members of her racial community online attempt to dismiss her race activism and intellectual production because of her connection with me.
It’s disgusting; never in eight years has an Asian American man or woman challenged Jenn’s activism or public statements over her connection with me to our faces. I guess people aren’t that crazy.”
You can say that certain “members of her racial community online attempt to dismiss her,” but I don’t know if that’s really relevant here. No one here has done that. Have they?
It would be like me talking to a black guy I just met, and then suddenly pulling out news clips on Korean American merchants who lost their entire livelihoods after the Rodney King riots, and then saying that I’m “disgust[ed]” by what blacks have done to Asians. It doesn’t have anything to do with the situation at hand, and it’s not constructive to lump people into categories without hearing them out first. People deserve to be treated as individuals rather than stereotypes of their race, regardless of how many negative experiences you’ve had with members of their race.
Do you agree?
“Are you encouraging Asian Americans to reject the useful activism of Ron Takaki, Norm Mineta, Helen Zia, B.D. Wong and George Takei?”
Only one of those (Helen Zia) is really an activist. The others are just prominent people in their fields. (I’m not trying to answer the question, just trying to point something out.
Anyway, carry on…
MelaninManson
8:19 pm | Aug 10, 2007“You can say that certain “members of her racial community online attempt to dismiss her,” but I don’t know if that’s really relevant here. No one here has done that. Have they?” - Jaehwan
I found the tone and content of Dialectic’s recent writing on this subject dismissive of Jenn’s activism and writing. I don’t believe he intended any ill will, but for me, intention is irrelevant. Certainly many people in this debate pride themselves on their ability to speak on this contentious topic without excess vitriol, and that hasn’t gone unnoticed.
Further, to my knowledge no one seriously blames all of Black America for the violence following Rodney King verdict. As to your example, maybe a useful parallel would involve finding a writer who encouraged violent action against Korean shopkeepers before the Rodney King verdict, but I can’t think of anyone who would fit that description. Maybe Ice Cube, but for me that’s a stretch, even though he did produce reprehensible anti-Asian hatespeech.
In this thread, Dialectic’s position that Asian American race activists can not date interracially is being challenged, and rightly so, because that position essentially tells Jenn that her intellectual capacity can only gain appreciation from Asian Americans after she dates an Asian American male, thereby disregarding her mind in favor of her vagina. It’s a sexist and reductive argument, one that pretends that Asian American male angst over interracial relationships that involve Asian American women should trump Asian American feminism.
But again, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that this isn’t modelminority.com. Those folk are crazy.
“You make a false distinction between their personal lives and their “intellectual activism.” It’s all integrated, bud. I thought you actually agreed with the “personal as political” stance in your post on the lynch song, but I suppose I mis-read you.” - Dialectic
It’s not a false distinction, Dialectic. The “personal is political” rhetoric of Paula Giddings reminds everyone that our personal lives involve oppression issues, that our personal lives are shaped, influenced, and often altered by politics, including identity politics, and that we owe it to ourselves to understand the politics that affect our lives. Perverting the “personal is political” to enforce political orthodoxy among a racial minority undercuts the independent thinking Giddings encouraged among people of color.
The bottom line remains that Asian American women concerned with issues affecting the Asian American community (mental health, Asian male emasculation, endless Hollywood stereotyping, corporate glass ceilings, etc.) are told by other political members of the community (often male) that in order for their activism to count, they have to date Asian men. Dialectic, your position echoes this unfair directive.
Dialectic, if you are unwilling to acknowledge the blatant sexism and paternalism inherent in that argument, then yes, it’s logical to consider your stance on this subject extreme.
“I respect diversity and individualism. I don’t respect rampant pathological individualism at the expense of communal goals and social responsibilities. I respect balance and consideration.” - Dialectic
Translation: You respect individualism, so long as the choices made by individuals in your community fall within your preset acceptable moral choice parameters. Dialectic, do you believe that dating a Black man while writing about Asian American politics promotes “rampant pathological individualism at the expense of communal goals and social responsibilities”? If so, how? Is my melanin that corrosive?
Vetrean
11:25 am | Aug 11, 2007Er…while I can’t provide a specific quote, the feeling I was getting from Dialectic’s stuff was more ‘if you’re going to be an advocate, you have to think about who you date, because as an advocate, you are under more responsibility, and dating interracially may undermine your advocacy,’ rather than ‘you can’t be an advocate if you’re not dating your own race.’
Just a thought. Perhaps I’m misreading, not you, but it seems sort of like you’re forcing Dialectic into the ’sell-out, can’t be an advocate’ position.
Scowl
1:06 pm | Aug 11, 2007I agree with Vetrean.
I think D’s quote was taken out of context. Correct me if I’m wrong, D, but he’s not actually making an absolute statement that race advocates should not be allowed to be advocates and involved in an IR at the same time. What he’s saying is that, if you do both, chances are that one or the other is going to suffer for it.
Melanin, I get what you’re saying. You’re saying that an activist’s personal relationships have nothing to do with the activist’s cause, and that any perceived effects are manufactured and then projected by insecure ethnocentrists, right? If so, I can see the validity in that line of thinking, and I will not deny that there is any truth in it.
Can you see how certain effects may pre-exist without anyone projecting anything? Isn’t the need to make a distinction between personal relationships and advocacy an effect in itself?
Feel free to correct me if I’ve read you wrong.
reappropriate
2:52 pm | Aug 11, 2007Vetrean and Scowl, I’m happy to quote the full section in context:
“And now we come to inter-racial relationships by Asians. I completely agree that, generally, Asian females and males ought to pursue whatever romantic relationship they wish without “giving power” to colonial and racist distortions by making decisions as reactions to those distortions. In the case of AA advocacy specifically, however, I do not agree that Asian females and males ought to pursue whatever romantic relationship they wish. (Julia Oh takes a similar stance in her discussion of the special considerations of APIA feminist activism here.)
I say this because the advocate, the activist, is no longer merely a private citizen, but is in a special position, a political position, and political positions are symbolic. They represent ideals, which is why the personal lives of politicians are given so much scrutiny, and why the political and the personal are not actually two separate things, as some believe.
When you stand up and say that you represent AA rights, AA pride, AA beauty, AA unity, AA power, then you must live AA rights, AA pride, AA beauty, AA unity, AA power. Remember that you are not only a symbol of equality, pride, beauty, unity, and power in humanity, but you represent the hopes and emancipation of a specific segment of humanity, and not humanity as a whole, though you might indeed love humanity as a whole. Your standing up, your shouting, your struggle, is in direct opposition to the existing power structure. You actually oppose some aspect of the broader society because you are struggling against the power structures in place.
As such, when you choose a “significant other,” whether that be marriage or simply dating, and you are in a symbolic position of advocacy and leadership for a minority group, you ought to be (1) a member of that minority group and (2) have close relations with that minority group in your life, personal and political.
Remember, that when you choose your wife or husband or life partner or relationship, you are not only making a statement to yourself, not only making a statement to that other person, but you are also making a statement to the world. You are saying that at present, this is the person I love, the person I trust, the person I can most relate to in all the whole wide world. And if the person you love, trust, and most relate to in all the whole wide world, is not Asian, and you’re an Asian activist, then that is a symbolic statement to the world that you don’t actually stand for the advancement of Asian interests in opposition to colonial racist interests, you stand for some broader human interest that takes you out of the Asian advocacy sphere. You have found that you relate best to someone who is not Asian, and you have gained better access, willingly or not, to some of the advantages of colonial racist privilege which you are supposedly struggling against.
You are an Asian advocate. You speak for Asians. You fight for Asians. The question is simple: do you stand for “Asianness” or not? If you marry someone white, then you don’t stand for “Asianness.” You stand for something else entirely.
There is no way around this. This is an “either/or” situation. This is why you become an advocate in the first place, because someone else has power that you want to shift to you. This is not a situation of transcendence or all-inclusiveness or love or universal acceptance. This is “us vs. them” because that’s the only way we attain rights and respect. Someone else has power that we want. And the same goes for any form of advocacy. An environmentalist, who fights for “all people,” the whole world, fights against big industry. They can’t marry oil tycoons. A human rights activist fights against despots and corrupt governments. They can’t marry Saddam or his sons. A minority activist fights against the oppressive structures imposed by the majority. You can’t marry into the majority.”
Here is the evidence that I see in D’s writing that he thinks advocates cannot be folks who are outmarried:
1) “In the case of AA advocacy specifically, however, I do not agree that Asian females and males ought to pursue whatever romantic relationship they wish. ”
2) Citing of Julia Oh, who also writes this perspective.
3) “political is personal are not two separate things”
4) advocates are symbols
5) “when you choose a “significant other,” whether that be marriage or simply dating, and you are in a symbolic position of advocacy and leadership for a minority group, you ought to be (1) a member of that minority group and (2) have close relations with that minority group in your life, personal and political.”
6) “If you marry someone white, then you don’t stand for “Asianness.” You stand for something else entirely.”
7) “This is an either/or situation”
If I have mis-read Dialectic’s perspective, than I’m happy to recant. However, I don’t think there’s anything in D’s original piece that says that there is a possibility for an authentic or acceptable “Asian American advocate” who is outmarried, and thus by extension, any APIA who outmarries, should not attempt to participate in advocacy work because they will never/should never be taken seriously.
howstrange
5:18 pm | Aug 11, 2007“ I don’t think there’s anything in D’s original piece that says that there is a possibility for an authentic or acceptable Asian American advocate” who is outmarried, and thus by extension, any APIA who outmarries, should not attempt to participate in advocacy work because they will never/should never be taken seriously.”
It’s not so much “should not attempt” to participate, but “shouldn’t” become the “leaders”. It’s not so much “should never”, but istead - most likely will not be taken seriously by a lot of people if they do become leaders - This applies to both men and women.
Dialectic
5:46 pm | Aug 11, 2007I’ve addressed these thoughts and issues already. If you haven’t, please take the time to read the comments/criticisms under the original article. I try to clarify at length.
Still, I think there are issues here, like the notion of legal and moral rights and responsibilities, which people are getting deeply confused. I’ll clarify in a future post.
Edwin
9:39 pm | Aug 11, 2007New user here. I think Dialectic’s point is very important. We can discuss and rationalize all we want but the major of the American population do not really care about the AA experience and will not really read or think too deeply into these discussions. What they will remember is that the AF activist kissed her Non-Asian spouce and thus justifying their beliefs all along that they are the Alpha male. A picture is worth a thousand words. Actions speak louder than words. Image is everything. Do as I say not as I do.
I believe that there are true Asian activists who are in interracial relationships. But people remember what they see more than what they hear. True activists should put their cause before themselves. It’s not about what is fair but about dealing with reality sacrificing for the greater good.
JadeDragon
6:40 am | Aug 12, 2007Okay, let me clarify my position in my previous post with an example. I am of the belief, like Dialectic, that Asian-American activists who lead or hold very senior positions within a formal politically-inclined Asian(-American) organisation shouldn’t date inter-racially when they advocate for Asian(-American) rights. Of course, this is an idealistic view as real life isn’t always going to be the case.
Why would I believe thus is because I was involved in a similar quandary when I was still fairly active on my former campus. I used to advocate for queer rights, and my personal life reflected my stances. I had no significant other, but I hung out with other queers, frequented queer venues and basically acted “queer”. Everyone who met me immediately assumed that I was queer, and I gave them no cause to think differently because this was what I wanted: equal opportunities and rights for the people I supported. To have behaved any differently would have been mocking them with my heteronormative privileges.
But then I met someone, and I gradually became involved in a heterosexual relationship. And because I respected my friends and didn’t want to make them feel that I was being a hypocrite by acting “straight” in my personal life, I bowed out of the organisation. If I had stayed, my friends would have felt that I was taking advantage of my queer credentials so as to remain in that sphere, but not practising what I preached in real life. (Incidentally, this is why those who identify as bisexuals get so much flak from other queers, because they are perceived to be acting “straight” when they are with people of the opposite sex, and can assimilate into heteronormative society.)
I quit not for me, but for them. Staying would have damaged their platform, because others who did not know us well could have pointed fingers at me and at the organisation and said, “Look, all you so-called gays and lesbians are really straight in real life! All you need is counselling and rehabilitation!” However, I still support LGBT activism, if only from the sidelines.
I’m not saying that an Asian(-American) advocate or activist who is in an inter-racial relationship cannot do good work. But many of those who are represented by the advocate will not feel the same way, especially when his/her personal choices seem to counter the organisation’s message.
jaehwan
12:27 pm | Aug 12, 2007Jade,
Great post! It definitely puts an interesting perspective on things when you share a real life example.
Jenn,
I’ve kind of sat on the sidelines for most of this round, but you can see some of my views here: http://www.thefighting44s.com/archives/2007/07/18/inter-racial-dating-by-asian-americans/#comments
Basically, this is my view:
1. People should have freedom to date whomever, for whatever reason, regardless if they are a leader or not. I actually think you can be president of the organization and still date out. Look at Vicki Shu Smolin (whom I am guessing married a non-Asian.). Her marriage has nothing to do with her activism, which tends to focus on issues outside of Asian American sexual identity.
2. I don’t agree with Dialectic’s view that advocates “should” date one race over another. This puts me in disagreement with D and others whom I greatly respect on this board, but it also puts me in agreement with others (including Minbo and Lycheng).
My own personal view is this: I think your moral responsibility is to yourself. Marry or date whomever you want, for any reason, regardless if you’re an advocate. That is your moral responsibility.
3. However, my stance on IR and leadership isn’t race blind. There have been a crop of Asian American female leaders married to white guys who have come out and said how beautiful and sexy Asian men are. Most people, white people and black people included, view this as ridiculous and condescending towards Asian men. And it is. In a culture where so many Asian women routinely dismiss Asian men–and I know you’re aware of this because I read your blog about Kelly Hu and the girl on America’s Next Top Model–it’s strikes most people as dishonest.
So here’s my view in a nutshell: I don’t think advocates SHOULD marry one race or another; they SHOULD marry whomever they like. However, advocates who do marry interracially SHOULD act respectfully towards people they lead, and one part of that respect is to NOT to look like a hypocrite or to unintentionally disparage the people they lead. Asian women who marry white guys, become leaders, and then spend all their time talking about how they think Asian men are hot, are sending a hypocritical image.
I think being an advocate in an interracial relationship is a nuanced skill that can only be acquired over time and practice. I think you, Jenn, as an advocate, should continue to support Asian women AND Asian men, but as someone involved in an interracial relationship, please understand that it colors the image to those who you seek to reach, and so it isn’t irrelevant. It does make your life more complicated, but that’s the necessary price that one pays when deciding to become a leader of people in the public eye.
Dialectic
5:18 pm | Aug 13, 2007Terrific post, Jade, and a damn good illustration of what I’m talking about (and yes everyone, I am aware that it’s not an exact analogy because it deals with sexual orientation and not race, but it reflects the spirit of what I’m saying perfectly).
I clarify my thoughts on the “should” and “freedom” in my latest post. Then we’ll get into the really neat stuff on why race-based social and political groups exist and what they do.
Thaihorse
1:50 am | Nov 23, 2007This is a very interesting topic and I have read all of your very intersting comments. I definitely see both sides of this issue and can see where everyone stands on this issue.
I do believe that a person is NOT being a good advocate for a cause if they are leading a lifestyle that goes against everything they are trying to represent. If I am telling everyone to live a moral, pious lifestyle and then when I leave the podium I’m embezzling the organizations funds, cheating on my wife and even taking drugs on the side, then yes, I’m being a total hypocrite and nothing I say has any value or authority to the people I am supposedly speaking for.
But when I read that an Asian woman can’t be a successful advocate for other Asian people because she is dating a non-Asian person, that seems very strange to me. If there are people who would reject her or her message because of her personal relationships (not because of criminal activity or moral depravity), then she couldn’t likely help them very much anyway. She has a positive and good message, she is doing what she can for the cause, but because people don’t approve of whom she’s dating, then they will reject her help and continue to be voiceless. If she is advocating for Asians only interacitng with and dating Asians, then yes, her dating a non-Asian would be an issue. But advocating for fair treatment and equal rights and freedoms that everyone else is entitled to has NOTHING to do with her own personal relationships which she and EVERYONE ELSE is entitled to have.
I agree that in this society there are concentrated efforts by the white controlled media to marginalize ALL non-white males. This woman and her relationship is not the enemy or the problem. It’s illogical to equate her choice to date a non-Asian as a direct rejection of all Asian males. She is just one woman and I assume would be in a relationship with only one male at a time. I guess all of the other lonely Asian males would still be happy if at least she is “one of us”. What if she does that and her significant other dies and she decides to join a convent. Is she still considered a good advocate if she chooses God instead of a non-Asian? No one else gets her, but at least “they” don’t get her either.
Her realtionship has nothing to do with what’s in her heart or with what she wants to do to help her community. It’s almost like me being in a flood and someone in a boat is coming to save me but since I know the person in the boat is in a relationship with someone I don;t want them to be with then I’m going to hang on to my piece of driftwood and tell them to move on, I’m waiting for someone more “appropriate” to come and save me. I just don’t get it.
Everyone is entitiled to their opinions here and I respect that. I do like that people can severely disagree here and yet still do it artfully and respectfully. I think I could accept some of these arguments better if you all lived in a totally racially homogeneous society and it was the law that you had to stay with your own race but the U.S. for all of its other faults is a pluralistic society with many ethnic groups that live together and from time to time, sleep together. As long as you are a part of this crazy, racist, mixed up place, this is a reality you will have to live with. And if you deliberately alienate people who interact sexually with people outside of your group, regardless of the other good that they bring to the table, regardless of the fact that they are doing nothing wrong, then in the end you are only short-changing yourselves and driving away people who really are on your side.
analogisnumberone
6:58 pm | Jul 03, 2008Thaihorse,
Individual wrong or right has got little to nothing to do with it. It’s a question of profit:
It was the law of the land for whites to not be outside their race. These laws were for the benefit of whites of course; whites knew these laws were to preserve whiteness.
At this point, “preserving whiteness” means to preserve “white profit”. Alienation is what whites do to us, for their benefit. Fighting back and resisting IR makes perfect political sense here and now. In Hawaii, things are quite a bit different with IR, where different Asians mix all the time. The Hawaiin political context is different, therefore IR has a completely different effect. Whites don’t benefit from their racism in the Hawaiin context, like they do here.
The South had racist laws once that defined Chinese men as white, but still allowed Black women and Chinese men to marry. Maybe whites didn’t feel threatened by these marriages. Who knows? The point is, it’s proper to be suspicious, and yes, to resist the IR as it is today. IR that involves whites benefits whites only. That means white women and white men.
IR here between non-whites has its own set of dynamics, but the stamp of white racism is still there, whether people like it or not. Dialectic is at least proposing to put the subject of white profits at the front of the discussion table.
So, when non-whites are with their white partners, should they be called out for it?
tubesrule
4:40 pm | Mar 05, 2009Dialectic, the major omission in the original post is the word “Racism”. Without that term, every arguement relies on unstated assumptions and presumptions. Interracial relationships are an issue because of racism, just as gay marriage is an issue because of heterosexist power.
You describe hearing “a chorus of voices”, but the main elements of your sentences are basically anecdotal. Without mentioning White profit, this amounts to giving Whites a free pass: White readers can see the original post and get the idea that non-whites have problems amongst themselves, and this is something Chinese, etc., have to work out for themselves.
Currently, IR cannot be discussed without raising the topic of racism.
As far as some kind of fair IR is concerned, I could give a fuck who goes out with whom. Having said that, as a Chinese male, I wasn’t born yesterday in a monastery. There is no fair IR at this point, and there won’t be until white racism is destroyed.