The 3rd Most Dangerous Job in the AA Blogosphere
17 Responses | Leave a Comment »
In terms of reputation, being a 44’s blogger is probably the third most dangerous job in the Asian American blogosphere (behind Reappropriate Jenn and 8Asians Bo, though the latter is almost entirely self-inflicted). Because I’m fairly prolific on the site, I’m bound to present some views that people aren’t going to agree with. In many ways, the game is stacked against me. The more I post, the more opportunities I have to piss people off. It’s a low odds game, and it doesn’t always pack that large of a payoff.
So I have a few follow up words about my last blog post. I don’t expect to change any views, but there are just a few things that need to be said.
1. Negativity: There are a few points that I need to make about someone’s statement that “most ideological blog entries here have to be about what things aren’t.” My last blog post wasn’t about “what things aren’t” but rather about what things are and what we need to do to fight against a dangerous philosophy and a dangerous demogogue. I’ll pull back from the demogogue thing if it makes people more comfortable, but I still think it’s a dangerous philosophy.
Still, if I’m reading everyone’s complaints correctly, people want a more positive message.
I agree with everyone about positive messages, but I think it’s also important to talk about where we are today. I’m reading the “Feminine Mystique” right now. I’m more than halfway done, and I’ve not yet read a single constructive, prescriptive suggestion from Friedan in the entire first half of the book. So far it’s nothing but complaining about how oppressed women are, how Freudian thought oppresses women, and how housework stifles the mind. “Why We Can’t Wait” by Martin Luther King started out the same way–it was all about how things are so bad that “We Can’t Wait.” It’s about how white people oppress black people with laws and violence. It’s really quite depressing, and the negativity is crazy.
However, most activist literature is similar. Activists start by describing the problem. That’s how most solutions are framed. Those books are well read because they tell the truth. In my view, you can’t really talk strategy until you know where you’re at. So if I’m negative, it’s because we’re in a negative situation. And we need to recognize the status quo before we can change it. I’m really not all that out-of-the-ordinary in how I describe this.
2. Negativity 2: I think people also need to realize that negative news sells better than positive news. I’ve looked through my blog posts, and whenever I write about people like Daniel Inouye, Khoi Vinh, Helen Zia, or Ruby Chow (and they’re there–just look for them), I never get any comments (props to Lopan for saying something about Vinh). These people are leaders and trailblazers in our community, but no one says anything about them. Natalise has more comments than Senator Dan Inouye, Khoi Vinh, Helen Zia, and Ruby Chow combined! I rarely break double digit posts unless I say something about Hong Kingston or feminism or anything else that gives people a reason to fight.
This is just the way things are, so no need to change; I’m just pointing it out. Other blogs are like this too–dailykos and gawker operate the same way. But please realize too that I’m being positive too. It’s just that my positivity usually goes unnoticed, as it does on virtually all the other sites out there.
The only exception, of course, is when I post things either about Obama or Ultimate Fighting. All I can say is “Thank God for Ultimate Fighting.” At least there’s one place where I can find love for my posts. Thank you kimtae and Rebel for supporting me when I post on this stuff. Dana White for President.
3. Strategy: I think I’ve mentioned many times before, but strategy can’t be done over the internet. This blog is good for news, and it’s good for sharing views and intelligence. If we’re going to strategize, we do that in person. The internet format just doesn’t lend itself well to that kind of activism. Even net warriors like Obama for America meet in person. I hope people are not blaming me for the limits of the internet, and I hope we can take it to the next step when we meet in August.
4.
The last thing I want to remark on is my thesis itself, the idea that Kingstonism must be stopped.
I’ve fulfilled my promise of shutting up and listening, but still, after three or four days of me not posting, no one has posted anything positive that Kingston has contributed other than just being there and drawing attention to Asian people, a criteria which could be applied to just about any Asian American, including Michelle Malkin, John Yoo, and all the other “disgrasians.”
I imagine that Maxine Hong Kingston, were she the main character in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” would jump off the bridge only to see a world where Asian men and Asian women were represented together in media, where we had a thriving intellectual culture, where we lived with trust and happiness, where Asian American women avoided the suicide problem, and where Asian American people had the confidence to become great athletes, politicians, and whatever else they would want to become. Michael Lohman would be too damn scared of Asian women to pull off any of that disgusting fluid nonsense. I’d probably be arguing FOR Falling For Grace since it would be so rare to see a WM/AF in the movies. Fallout Central would be a TV show because the media would be dying to hire Asian guys.
I’m joking, of course, but if you look at the historical record, it was definitely heading in this direction until the early 70’s when “Woman Warrior” came out. Sessue Hayakawa was a leading man pre-Kingston, as was Bruce Lee. Asian American culture began thriving with Frank Chin, Shawn Wong, Connie Young Yu, and others. We were on the road to great intellectual achievements. And then the great hijack took place.
I’ll try to make my arguments less personal, but as you can probably tell, I’m very much a big believer that Orientalism is a problem, and I wouldn’t have pointed the finger at Kingstonism if I didn’t believe it was at the heart of the problem. As you all know, we’re raising money for Frank Chin to come to Portland, and I can’t tell you how many times Asian Americans have said that they want someone more mainstream. It’s not even white people who object; a lot of times it’s our “own” people. Certain people have explicitly voiced their preference for something more “mainstream,” and “Kingston” and “Tan” have come up. Some might say that it’s a function of white America that they’re popular, but I think that denies agency to the Asian American people who have helped to re-create and enforce this system of orientalism.
Contrast this to the fanfare that was in the air when Amy Tan visited. It may sound like I’m talking about a harmless trend, but this orientalism affects everyone here in spirit, energy, and money (and I can tell you a thing or two about this). I don’t think people can understand the depth of Kingstonian thought until people have been on the ground trying to raise money, talking to people, and seeing how the politics take place. It’s ironic that most would consider a book like “Joy Luck Club,” where women cut off their flesh for soup, more mainstream than “Banana Boys,” a story of Asian people just going through life. As they say, money talks, and it’s true. Comparing this years fundraising efforts with last year’s Vincent Chin event, it’s clear to me that people won’t go against the status quo unless some Chinese person literally dies. I just think that’s too late. Why should we wait for culture to reach a boiling point before acting against the status quo? I was remarking to William from Fallout Central that had I known the market for Asian American gender representation, maybe I would’ve opted for something more mainstream. Maybe we could have had a “Falling for Grace” or “Joy Luck Club” fundraiser for our event. Shit, maybe I could just dye my hair blonde and become a rice chaser. We put so much effort into our activism only to have a dangerous philosophy sideswipe our efforts.
So this is my view. If we still disagree, I hope we can do so respectfully.
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
awong
2:12 am | Jun 13, 2008i really liked the blog about Ruby Chow, a lot of the positive blogs you post I’ll read, but not know how to comment them, but I do enjoy reading them, I guess thats the case with most of ones recognizing someone who died, or something signiciant vs something contriversal.
uRB4N
8:35 am | Jun 13, 2008I respect what you’re doing. There are far too many Asian men are chickensh*t to do it. I know so many Asian men who feel the same way because they’re too afraid of being labeled the “Bitter Asian Man” so they end up biting their tongue.
As much as Asian men mistreat Asian women, I also think that Asian women mistreat their men as well when the shoe is on the other foot.
Dialectic
9:20 am | Jun 13, 2008That’s all the 44s are asking for: the day when we’re all so equal that we, too, can cheer WM/AF! They’re adorable.
sargassosea
10:49 am | Jun 13, 2008I’m sorry my comment to you in the other post was so brief. My frustration got the better of me. I agree that all should continue respectfully. You’ve brought up interesting points that I’d like to address.
You believe that the works of Hong Kingston and Tan perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Asian men and are thereby deterimental to the APIA community. Since I haven’t studied either author extensively, I can’t agree or disagree with that sentiment as of yet. I only want to point out that using fictional writing as evidence sometimes becomes quite sticky, because any work of fiction is subject to a vast array of different interpretations. I recently found an article on Hong Kingston’s Tripmaster Monkey by A. Noelle Williams that argues that “much of Kingston’s storytelling questions and often undercuts Western stereotypes of Chinese misogyny.” (A close reading of Tripmaster Monkey and parts of The Woman Warrior follow this bold claim.) Even if you disagree entirely with Williams’ statement, certainly you can see how two people can have different readings of a text but still share similar political views. In this case, both you and Williams agree that Western stereotypes of Chinese misogyny are harmful and need to be overthrown. The only difference is that you believe Kingston’s texts further those stereotypes and Williams does not. Neither of you are “wrong”–rather, you have interpreted a work of fiction in different ways.
To me what this means is that we, as a community, cannot immediately write off Kingston when there is an existing body of rigorous and progressive scholarship that holds a positive interpretation of her fiction while simultaneously sharing our political views. If anyone can point me to an article or an interview where Kingston herself has explicitly declared that Asian patriarchy is worse than white racism, or that Asian culture needs to be rescued by the West, then I will fully reject her. But if all we have so far as evidence is her fiction, then I think we need to be very careful in our condemnations, not only of her, but of people who support her.
Makulita
1:37 pm | Jun 13, 2008I am Makulita.
I am an Asian American Woman.
… And I endorse jaewhan’s vitriol. Dude is harsh, thumbs up man!
blockthebox
1:58 pm | Jun 13, 2008^ Haha. Jaehwan is a very passionate dude and he’s been such an asset and a driving force behind the recent activity at the 44s. I think there’s been too much focus on Kingston, but we can agree to disagree :)
Btw, I’m sure everyone digs the positive posts even if we don’t necessarily respond.
Dialectic
2:23 pm | Jun 13, 2008^I don’t. They give me no hits and thus make me no money. Let’s talk about IR.
Also, can’t say much about the Honger ’cause I haven’t read much of her work, but of the stuff I’ve read of Auntie Tan’s, it’s culturally terrible but quite well-written.
I’m more curious to hear details of H-K’s “derailment” of AA literary/political development, and the historical context and details.
uRB4N
2:47 pm | Jun 13, 2008Well, it could be breaking stereotypes and reinforcing them. For example, this book called “China Dolls” was written by two “progressive” Asian American women where the three main Asian female characters were given 3 dimensional portrayals but all the Asian men were cookie cutter stereotypes of the worst type.
You had the geek, the angry Asian man, the passive aggressive loser, the extremely sexist gang banger, etc. These two didn’t miss a single stereotype.
What I find even more insulting is that two of the Asian sisters wind up with white men and they’re portrayed as nothing short of godly specifically because of their interracial status. The last sister’s relationship is open ended in regards to an Asian man but she was the only one that slept around with many white men. They even had Asian men supporting this book. I can’t even begin to explain how condescending this is and you actually have Asian men supporting this book. What the hell?
So, in this case, the book could be breaking stereotypes from one angle and still technically be called “ground-breaking.”
jaehwan
1:00 am | Jun 14, 2008Thanks, All!
Yes, I don’t expect people to comment on the positive ones because…well, there’s nothing usually to say, other than, “Good for that person!” I was just making the point that it seems negative even when it really isn’t.
Speaking of negative, even though I was fighting against Xian’s point about negativity, the negativity in The Feminine Mystique actually is making it hard for me to finish…
Sargasso,
Thanks for the argument. I’m absolutely beat (and exhilarated) right now because I’ve been working on the aforementioned event, but I will definitely read that article in the future. I read the first couple of pages, and it looks like it’s the same fiction argument that I’ve seen a few times. The problem with the argument (as it seems right now) is that Kingston’s fiction represents many things as fact, like the previously discussed slave/woman thing. Or it creates fiction based on exaggerated accusations of footbinding against Asian men.
Also, she’s done some really dirty politicking outside of her writing, such as when her friends stripped Frank Chin of a literary award. She’s also said some really stupid nonsense that basically branded any angry Asian American activist as being out of touch.
I haven’t read the article yet, but I eventually will. I might actually want to get Kingston out of mind for the next month or so with this event, but I (and hopefully we!) will return to it. Actually we have to return to it since it’s such an important battle in Asian American culture. Let’s definitely revisit it soon.
Thanks for posting!
jaehwan
1:20 am | Jun 14, 2008Oops, I meant to say, “Thanks for the article,” not “Thanks for the argument.” As you can probably tell, I probably wouldn’t be absorbing much even if I read it now…
Makulita
3:04 am | Jun 14, 2008…. Lol Freudian slip. :D
Xian
10:58 am | Jun 14, 20081) As others have pointed out, it’s not a lack of love for positive posts that causes a lack of comments. Sometimes it seems pointless to post. “Thanks, I learned a lot” rather than “That’s fucked up for these 10 reasons…” to the more inflammatory posts.” This is of course, wrong. After all, one of the first things you learn as a teacher is that if you spend all of your energy correcting students, they will lose confidence and motivation. I apologize, I should be saying supportive stuff more.
I think you are a passionate visionary for the Asian American community. Any critique comes not from a lack of a respect, but from the knowledge that we must win. I would argue the opposite from what you’ve said–the activist pieces are absolutely MUST reads, and represent a compass to our future triumph as an Asian American community.
The “let’s get them” posts’ massive comments are a testament of how easily we can get distracted by in-fighting and how much energy is being spent on that. We won’t win doing that.
2) no one has posted anything positive that Kingston has contributed other than just being there and drawing attention to Asian people
This is false, and I’m not pointing that out to treat you, I think it’s illustrative of the force of vilification–there have been at least two examples of positive work by Kingston which have been lost in the flames going back and forth.
3) This is all rearranging furniture on the deck of the Titanic. We are still politically reactive, and until our action list is something other than “respond to Chink’s steaks”, and is rooted in a cohensive, strategic ideological stand, we will continue to spend our energy in-fighting. Rather than just critique, I’ll start:
Resolution one: We as a community recognize that both AF self-hate and AM self-hate are actually manifestation of the same condition–a lack of secure self-image in reaction to wide-spread sexism and racism along sexual lines that rooted in mainstream values and ideology.
In other words, what are referred to as “AM misogyny” and “AF selloutism” are actually the exact same thing.
We as a community, rather than fight a pitched battle over which side is to blame, will unify to compassionately treat those with this sickness, and build alternative images of Asian American sexuality that can replace this damage imagery from mainstream racist/sexist society.
caocao
11:28 am | Jun 14, 2008the whole argument “fiction is subjective” and therefore everybody has different interpretations is also moot without taking in context of what background and beliefs the audience has.
it has to come from a position of power where those perpetuating it doesn’t believe it’s offensive, but those who are affected by it believes it to be.
namely, most pseudo-liberals think they’re so enlightened to promote PC rhetoric of saving the savages from their heathen civilizations — how many works of fictions have there been for this?
while whites view it as noble or liberal, POC see it differently as colonialist and ethnocentric and racist.
the same goes for “interracial marriages” that from a pseudo-liberal perspective seems progressive because of “colorblind love.” however, when you take it in actuality of AF/WM and the history of colonialism and sexism and why “colorblind” will always mean white, it becomes problematic for the POC.
until the playing fields are leveled for everyone involved, there’s just no such thing as the dominant power structure’s “fiction” being open to interpretation.
King4aDay
3:51 pm | Jun 14, 2008Surely it’s your job to stir things up. You’re submitting what’s equivalent to an OPEd page every few days here. If you don’t tick people off, IMHO there’s no way that you’re doing your job.
Perhaps a clearer delineation should be drawn between disagreeing with a column and disagreeing with the person who wrote the column. In other words it’s legitimate to say, “That column was stupid!” but not to say that “Jaehwan is stupid for writing it.”
jaehwan
1:35 am | Jun 15, 2008Thanks, King.
I guess “Jaehwan is stupid” is okay too if it’s backed up by reasoning. Haha! Seriously though, I think the 44’s is also complicated by the fact that some of here have known each other for a while. For me, anyway, that adds in another layer of complexity.
Caocao:
Good points.
Xian:
Xian,
I still stand by my original statement. What positive work? One person simply says that she is a “scholar,” and while that may be true, it doesn’t necessarily equate to good work for Asian Americans. It’s like evaluating Bush and saying, “He started a big war by misleading the American people, but he is a politician, so that’s a good contribution.” (In all fairness to Bush, he has appointed minorities and given lots of money to Africa for the fight against AIDS, so I believe he has made some positive contributions, even if the negative outweigh the positive.) It’s not vilification; it’s evaluation. She hasn’t made one positive contribution, unless you take the alternative interpretation argument about her fiction, or unless you believe that she contributes by creating dialogue.
I think our differences come from the teacher vs. businessperson thing. Both are important because we need to help our least fortunate, which our teachers do well, but I think we also need to manage by having the ability to “fire” those who are not up to the job or who have not conducted themselves well. It’s like Martin Luther King must’ve said to some of those unfit people who wanted to march: “I don’t think so.” Keep in mind too, Xian, that I’m not just aiming and shooting at everyone and everything. I think I may have made fun of Natalise, but I don’t identify her as a demogogue or leader of a negative movement.
But you’re right, let’s move on. I agree with everything else you say. Let’s definitely revisit that AM/AF question in August.
nskripchun
4:05 am | Jun 15, 2008>I imagine that Maxine Hong Kingston, were she the main character in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” would jump off the bridge only to see a world where Asian men and Asian women were represented together in media, where we had a thriving intellectual culture, where we lived with trust and happiness, where Asian American women avoided the suicide problem, and where Asian American people had the confidence to become great athletes, politicians, and whatever else they would want to become. Michael Lohman would be too damn scared of Asian women to pull off any of that disgusting fluid nonsense. I’d probably be arguing FOR Falling For Grace since it would be so rare to see a WM/AF in the movies. Fallout Central would be a TV show because the media would be dying to hire Asian guys.
HAHAHAHA!
Props, jaehwan. Maybe people don’t always like what you have to say or write here on the F44s, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily unproductive or invalid.
I know you’re not a religious guy, but the term “prophetic voice” comes to mind via the writings of Professor Cornel West - he argues that people have a duty to speak up and declare “the truth”, especially when it comes to pointing out and critiquing what’s wrong with our culture and society (which is identical to the function of the prophets in the Bible… God would send them to the Jewish people to remind them they were becoming corrupt or screwing up).
So in short… embrace your role as a “prophetic voice” in the bloggosphere! ;)
jaehwan
1:23 am | Jun 16, 2008Thanks, skrips!!! Haha…I’m not religious, but I like the prophetic title!
Actually, in my Japanese blogging post, I was going to say that the American habit of blogging to try to change the world actually comes from the Christian evangelical tradition. I was going to write that that same tradition helped us to eliminate slavery, and that it’s that legacy that has us going around the world and trying to change the world. But then I realized that the post was already too long.
So if anyone asks, I actually do respect religion and how it has historically influenced our culture, even if I’m not religious myself. And I like the imagery and symbolism. Thanks for the props!