Rice Chaser with a Badge
15 Responses | Leave a Comment »
According to SF Gate:
The city of Oakland is expected to pay $2 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by 16 Asian American women who said they were pulled over for no reason by a police officer who then groped or sexually harassed them.
I saw this news from 8A John, although I’m quoting a different article.
I remember reading about this Richard Valerga guy a while back, but apparently the issue was resolved only recently. A rice chaser with a badge. Not only is this action an abuse of power, not only does this kind of behavior erode public trust in the system, but it lacks all traces of creativity on the part of the rice chaser himself.
I mean, come on!!! What ever happened to the old days when rice chasers would take Japanese classes and pretend to be interested in the culture? What ever happened to the days when rice chasers shed tears to show their sensitive sides while watching the Joy Luck Club? What ever happened to the days when rice chasers with ponytails would take Taekwondo classes and try to “help” women with their stretching? There are so many chasers in the world, and the fact they have to resort to this kind of uncreative behavior is a crime on top of a crime.
I think the public solution, long term of course, is to open the commentary. Fight the stereotypes by saying, “We know what a rice chaser is, we know what rice chasers do, and you may think you’re pulling one over on us, but you’re not.” Then invite all your friends and get them involved.
On a more theoretical level, while I was googling this article, I came upon this wiki entry called Sex Crimes against Asian women in the United States. This wiki article documents quite a few chaser crimes, including the particularly unique Michael Lohman, the guy with the bottles. In the second subsection of the “Asian fetish theory” section, the article says,
Sex crimes targeting Asian American women are often attributed by some Asian American advocacy groups to the existence of an Asian fetish in the perpetrators of the crimes. Yin Ling Leung, organizational director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, claims that sex crimes targeting Asian American women are a form of hate crime and a distorted form of racist love:[2]
That “racist love” link leads to another wiki entry, which says,
The term was coined by Frank Chin and Jeffery Paul Chan in a 1972 article entitled “Racist Love.” Chin and Chan differentiate between the terms racist hate and racist love. They distinguish between unacceptable stereotypes, such as Fu Manchu and the Yellow Peril, which represent minorities who cannot be controlled by whites; and acceptable stereotypes, such as Charlie Chan and his Number One Son, which represent minorities who can be controlled by whites. Hence, acceptable stereotypes form the basis of racist love. When the perpetuation of such acceptable stereotypes reached a point as to be embodied and perpetuated by the race of people it represents, this race, as a social, creative, and cultural force, would have been successfully neutralized by white supremacy. Chin and Chan write:
| “ | White racism enforces white supremacy. White supremacy is a system of order and a way of perceiving reality. Its purpose is to keep whites on top and set them free. Colored minorities in white reality are stereotypes. Each racial stereotype comes in two models, the acceptable and the unacceptable. The hostile black stud has his acceptable counterpart in the form of Stepin Fetchit. For the savage, kill-crazy Geronimo, there is Tonto and the Hollywood version of Cochise. For the mad dog General Santa Ana there’s the Cisco Kid and Pancho. For Fu Manchu and the Yellow Peril, there is Charlie Chan and his Number One Son. The unacceptable model is unacceptable because he cannot be controlled by whites. The acceptable model is acceptable because he is tractable. There is racist hate and racist love.[1] |
Frank Chin’s influence is everywhere, and he is 100% correct about racist love. People who have racist love towards Asians and Asian Americans praise our so-called docility because it keeps us in our place. The stereotypes serve to neutralize our anger, our sense of frustration, and our efforts to organize and take action against trends that affect us.
It’s interesting that Chin and Chan published this essay in 1972, more than 35 years ago. Why hasn’t this thinking become a part of Asian American culture? It’s relevant to everything we do and influences much of our self-conception, but it has not entered our culture in the same way “by all means necessary” or “I have a dream” has. Why hasn’t this thinking–which is so obviously right–become more mainstream?
Wiki has the answer again, further down in the same article:
Authors Sau-ling Wong and Jeffrey J. Santa Ana criticize Chin for being misogynistic, homophobic, and for glorifying stereotypes of aggression:
“ Frank Chin, perhaps the best known of the androcentric cultural nationalist writers, relies on misogyny and homophobia in his attempt to delineate and construct a (hetero)normative Asian American manhood. In his critique of racist Hollywood caricatures of Asian men, for example, Chin glorifies stereotypes of aggression in black, Latino, and Native American men.[2]
Haha…never underestimate a Kingstonian. Or in this case, a pair of Kingstonians. “What? You’re against racism? You see things in other cultures that you admire? You’re a racist…and a homophobe!!!” I don’t know if I’ve read this particular article by Wong and Santa Ana, but it’s so asinine how people throw accusations of sexism and homophobia when they can’t win an argument. I’ve been reading these Asian American papers for a long time, and I don’t recall ever seeing any kind of actual documentation of racism or homophobia that these anti-Chin forces bring up, from anyone. All we ever see is the same old Kingstonian swiftboating and name-calling.
In any case, returning back to my original point, I think we need to open dialogue on this issue. We get enough practice on message boards, but we need to also start talking to our friends and family about it too. Build your vocabulary and do your research. The information is out there.
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
nightshade
1:41 pm | Jul 18, 2008Jae, have you read anything else by Sau-ling Wong and Jeffrey J. Santa Ana? I may not agree with their take on Frank Chin, but a paragraph on Wikipedia shouldn’t be fodder for immediately dismissing their work as “Kingstonian.” What do we accomplish by isolating academics and pointing fingers at them? It’s the same thing that people have done to Frank Chin. Do we want to be like that?
jaehwan
2:34 pm | Jul 18, 2008Yes, I have read Sau-Ling Wong. From what I’ve read, she’s quite open with where she stands on the debate. She’s one of the most vocal Kingstonians out there. I have not read (and had not even heard of) Santa Ana. He shouldn’t have signed his name if he didn’t want criticism.
I like some of Sau-Ling’s stuff, and I dislike some of her stuff. I’m not saying that all of her stuff is bad. It isn’t, and I never said it was. But attacking someone by labeling them as homophobic or sexist without proof–that’s not right. And those who get drunk on the Kingstonian Kool-Aid usually act this way. I’ve not met one who didn’t.
I’m not saying these people are bad. Most of them are not. But they are highly highly misguided when they rely on ad-hominem attacks to make a point. If Frank did the same thing, I’d criticize him. But he hasn’t. He’s stuck to the facts.
Shades, the academic world is political. Tell me if I’m misinterpreting you, but I don’t understand why one side–the more established side, mind you–should be allowed to attack a person while we’re not supposed to call them out on it. This was my point. Effective thinking has been crushed by the “mainstream” Asian Americanists. There’s a very good reason to explain why things are the way they are.
Returning to my main point, why hasn’t the concept of “racist love” yet entered our vocabulary or conversation? I proposed my thoughts on this. What is your theory? Keep in mind that whatever theory you propose needs to take account of the fact that Asian American Studies is over 35 years old. What have they been doing for 35 years? Think of what most of us on this board have accomplished in 35 years–graduating school, working, being born, etc. What have they been doing for 35 years? It seems like all the cutting edge stuff comes from independents like Frank Chin or the 44s. I think it’s fair to point this out.
jaehwan
2:38 pm | Jul 18, 2008By the way, I also want to point out that the term “Kingstonian” was not coined by me. I’ve heard real Kingstonians in academia use it to describe their way of thinking. I don’t know who coined the term.
And yes, I’m not aware of any of them who have not attacked Frank Chin.
nightshade
2:39 pm | Jul 18, 2008It’s not a problem to call an academic out, but it’s a problem to label an entire group of people “Kingstonians.” That’s my issue. It’s the same thing as “Frank Chin is a misgoynist homophobe” because you’ve laid out your argument of Kingstonian as being an academic who puts down Asians in favour of whitey. Just because someone disagrees with Frank Chin does not make them enamoured with white people. That’s all I’m saying.
jaehwan
3:15 pm | Jul 18, 2008Shades,
We’re in agreement. I never said that nor implied that, nor do I agree with that. You’re free to disagree with him, as am I. I do think a lot of Kingstonians cater to white people, but that’s an entirely different statement. Though Kingston has misrepresented history and Chinese culture, even that doesn’t make her a bad person or “enamored with white people.” It just makes her influence dangerous and misguided, and it means that we have to challenge it.
So aside from our differences (if they even exist) on the state of Asian American studies, what is your view of the concept of “racist love?” If you agree with the concept, why hasn’t it become part of our vocabulary? What is the proactive recipe for social change?
nightshade
6:27 pm | Jul 18, 2008I don’t get a sense of what Chin and Chan want to say about racist love from the quotation above. Is it that racist hate and racist love come from the same place? What exactly is racist love according to their definition? I should probably read their essay.
Also, the leap to Wong and Santa Ana is being responsible for the fact that the term “racist love” not catching on–I’m not sure if I understand the connection.
It is exactly this kind of infighting, where one educated group within the community insists that another educated group within the community, is some specific terrible thing (misogynist or self hating) that detracts from any forward movement with the academic community. It is not to say that people should call other people out for being wrong, but so much energy is being spent on accusations. We don’t have the luxury to do this yet. Sure, white academics can do it all they want, because they don’t have to spend each day reaffirming their identities.
This is why I believe that we have to build upon the work of all Asian American academics, instead of refusing to acknowledge the role they have played in shaping the way we read and see the world.
As for the whole rice chaser bit–well, the man isn’t just a rice chaser. He’s a potential rapist and someone who gets off having power over women. In this case he’s exercising power over Asian women.
JadeDragon
7:44 pm | Jul 18, 2008Why does Kingston have to pop up every time there is some negative to say about an aspect of Asian-American theory?
I have to agree with Nightshade on the fact that you can’t afford infighting at this point. It just makes people within the organisation(s) angry and alienates those who would have joined and/or been supportive in the first place if not for that sort of stupidity.
I really don’t want to say too much anymore because I get angry trying to articulate what I think, but seriously, Jaehwan, while you may know things on an intellectual level and your heart is in the right place, you have very little empathy for things you don’t agree with, and that makes for bad dialogue.
Xian
1:36 am | Jul 19, 2008I agree with the ideology of your post, but it still appears that you are more interested in waging war than building for a strategic victory. If you look, the discussion has immediately veered from your solid point toward another discussion of your hatred of old school self-identified Asian American feminists.
But this is the answer to your own question. Why haven’t we embraced this visionary perspective?
Because we spend our time and energy winning arguments with each other rather than identifying our commonality, and shared grievances and fighting for their resolution.
Why did you need the last series of “AHA! GOTCHA!” paragraphs?
“Sick, racist infatuation is rooted in the same white supremacist agenda that drive racial hatred and antipathy!” was a fine point. Why not go to the next step rather than use that brilliant point to simply go another round on some perceived traitors (not really here) in our midst?
I can’t speak for you, but my belief on the next step is this:
We need to publicize the point-of-view that racist assaults are driven by the same exotification impulses that surge from the society’s white supremacist foundation. These assaults, more than anything are symbols of the commonality we share–whether exotified or emasculated–not only with other Asian Americans, but all of those marginalized and oppressed by social institutions.
THX1138
9:11 am | Jul 19, 2008It’s outrageous that this cop got only 6 months in jail and the Oakland PD had to pay merely $2 million total to 16 women. That’s peanuts.
This guy is a serial sexual assaulter/harasser and should be sitting in jail playing the role of girlfriend to some guy named Bubba for a long, long time. California’s infamous SuperMax prison system would be a good place to lock up this guy. Former cops are not exactly the most beloved people in prisons.
As for Chin et al.’s “Racist Love” essay, their point is that racist stereotypes often come in
binary pairs. Thus, for Asians, there is the menacing Yellow Peril stereotype as embodied by Fu Manchu. And there is the stereotype of Asians as docile and obedient, as embodied by Charlie Chan. The former is an example of Racist Hate, while the latter is Racist Love. Similar examples can be found with other minorities.
Beyond this, the essay talks about the function of these stereotypes and how Asian Americans internalize them. Simply put, the purpose of these stereotypes is to provide a “model of behavior” that minorities implicitly should emulate–thus upholding America’s racial caste system in which White is Right: “If the system works, the stereotypes assigned to the various races are accepted by the races themselves as reality, as fact, and racist love reigns.”
Asian Americans, Chin et al. believe, often accept the legitimacy of this belief system and embrace it as their very own. As a result, Asian people live in a kind of identity nether world in which they accept “white standards of objectivity, beauty, behavior, and achievement as being morally absolute,” yet they can never fully live up to these standards because as they are not White.
For academics like Sau-ling Wong, the work of Chin and company in general reinforces mainstream American sexism or homophobia, even as it opposes racism. Their essay, for instance, talks about these issues from an Asian male perspective and does not address how this system of White male supremacy uniquely impacts Asian women.
What’s interesting to me is that the situation described in “Racist Love” is still relevant to this very day, over 30 years after the publication of the article.
These ideas about Asians as either exoticized sex objects (if you’re an Asian woman) or as emasculated sexless objects (if you’re an Asian man) continue to pervade popular culture and consciousness, though often in more subtle form. Not only that, some Asian Americans tacitly internalize these identities or at least are loath to challenge them.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
There are many reasons for this problem, but one primary factor is that Asian Americans as a people have yet to complete a process of what Ng?g? wa Thiong’o called “decolonizing the mind.”
For as long as you accept the “colonizer’s” definition of who you are and what your identity and culture represent, you ain’t free.
jaehwan
3:11 pm | Jul 20, 2008Awesome post, THX.
Sorry about the spam blocker…it’s a bit aggressive at times (or else it’s racist…who knows?), but the system should recognize you going forward.
The $2 million is definitely also a slap on the wrist, especially given the fact that he was a cop. I’m all for equality. If someone gets an increased penalty for assaulting a cop, a cop who abuses that additional legal and social protection afforded by his authority as a cop should get increased time for crimes he commits. It’s only fair.
You’re also right about our need to decolonize. That was exactly my point when I mentioned in the original post that Chin and Chan’s essay was written 35 years ago. We Asian Americans have an intellectual foundation to understand the status quo in order to make changes. A lot of the stuff we discuss here has been discussed before, and many of the solutions are already out there. Why haven’t more of us embraced it? Why don’t more of us use our minds for the purpose of progress?
I cited Santa Ana and Wong because I think therein lies the reason. It wasn’t a “Gotcha” moment; it was just pointing out my theory on why we haven’t embraced intelligent thinking and why we’re still in the same place 35 years later.
I think JD, Shades, and Xian are making the same point, so I’ll address it briefly and then make a suggestion.
I’m against infighting too, but I think any movement for change is going to generate some sort of fighting. Gandhi, Malcolm, Lincoln, Sun Yat-Sen, and Martin–they all pissed their own people off. Some of them pissed people off so much that they were killed for what they said. The alternative is not to piss people off, and the only way to do that is by not saying much OR saying what people are already saying, which, in my opinion, is the tactic that many have been taking for the past 35 years.
I also somewhat disagree with the statement that we can’t afford infighting. Regardless of their race, if someone is taking something away from you–be it money, property, or a tradition of intellectual understanding–I think you have a right to fight. Or at least question. One reason why Thymos was successful in raising so much money and generating a turnout for our last event was exactly because we were fighting for what’s right. Sure, we would’ve have a larger turnout if we had screened “Joy Luck Club” instead of “What’s Wrong with Frank Chin,” but then what would be the point? By taking the more acceptable path, we’d alienate those who really want change.
With respect to empathy, I’ve read books by Pat Buchanan and Victor Hanson Davis and others, guys who all have views which I find, at some level, repugnant. As long as they’re telling the truth, I’m cool with it. For the most part, these guys are very truthful; they interpret history differently, but the facts are the same. Buchanan is old school when it comes to race, and Davis is selective when it comes to analyzing cultures, but I empathize with where they are coming from.
On the other hand, I’m not cool with academics who stifle dialogue and shy away from history, which is the only reason I brought up the Kingstonian thing again. Hey, if these people were not ruining Asian American studies, they wouldn’t have the power to stifle dialogue, and I’d have less of a problem with them. All these cool essays like “Racist Love” would be part of our own understanding. But it’s not. And I think it’s fair to challenge the status quo.
I think you all would see my perspective a bit more clearly if we spoke rather than typed, so in the spirit of dialogue, I have a proposal–let’s do a 44s podcast on activism. You still might not agree with me afterwards, but at least you could hear my perspective and ask my questions/challenge me on where you think I’m wrong. Who knows? Maybe I’ll change my views after talking. Alternatively, we could all just do a private conference call on this topic.
What say you all? It may or make not work, but maybe it’s worth a shot. From my own perspective (and this again is my opinion only), we’ve had 35 years of the non-progress or slow progress, and I’m willing to do what it takes to take our efforts to the next level.
Xian
3:43 pm | Jul 20, 2008I’m down for whatever you want as long as I can fit it between teaching commitments, and I’ll see you in August..
JadeDragon
3:51 pm | Jul 20, 2008I think you’re not getting at some of the points that were outlined above, Jaehwan. When I speak of infighting, it’s not the sort that plagued Gandhi’s, Malcolm’s et al. movements. Their movements were already guided by common goals and principles, and countless people could relate to them because they were already universal in nature.
When it comes to Asian-American representation, infighting is not helpful RIGHT NOW because many Asian-Americans can’t even agree on what it is to BE Asian-American. Sure, you have a group that enjoys good turnouts at events and comprises members who agree on many things, but it’s not the same for those Asian-Americans who couldn’t be bothered to read up on Asian-American history or attend such events because they can’t identify with any of that yet. If they feel no connection with the “movement”, then how is infighting even a positive thing?
MG was right: nothing can go forward until you manage to find something that most Asian-Americans can identify with and can be passionate about.
Also, I have to take offence with the tone you use here, Jaehwan. Why do you always make it sound like you’re right and we’re wrong all the time?
This paragraph really grates.
nightshade
4:27 pm | Jul 20, 2008Jae, I get your perspective, and from what I see, you’re acting in the same spirit as the academics who have worked to discredit Frank Chin. It’s a rigid stance to take, it’s moralistic, and it prevents us from gaining momentum. It’s one thing to call out someone for being wrong in ONE instance, but another to try to discredit all the work they’ve ever done for ONE thing that you disagree with. That’s what the academics you dislike have done to Chin–they disagree with his framing of Asian American masculinity and therefore refuse to see the aspects of his work which are beneficial to the shaping of Asian American identity and literature.
Please don’t bring up the Holocaust deniers again to try to prove your point here, because this isn’t about denying the slaughter of millions of people. This is about academic discourse, which is different from VIOLENT OPPRESSION.
The other thing that separates our line of reasoning is I don’t believe in Truth. I believe that there are facts, and that we’re in a constant state of gathering evidence and refining our viewpoints. I mean, you can’t possibly believe that your thinking now has reached its absolute limit.
aznbro
6:44 pm | Jul 20, 2008As someone that doesn’t have an academic background in AA activisim, I never got the impression that jaehwan was trying to write off Sau-ling Wong and all of her work by labelling her a Kingstonian. Instead, I pictured someone like Jenn from reapproriate; someone who is interested in furthering the AA cause without necessarily being overly sensitive about the plight of gen1.5+ middle-class AA men.
I actually don’t mind a bit of in-fighting if all sides stick to concrete argument and not baseless, random accusations. I think I can learn a lot from this.
jaehwan
2:40 am | Jul 21, 2008Aznbro is right. I wasn’t trying to write off everything Sau-Ling Wong did. I was just criticizing one part of her work and method.
Jade, I really meant no offense. Communication is sometimes difficult over the internet.
I spoke to the Fallout guys earlier today; if we want to do a podcast, they’ll host/lend us their equipment. Let’s do it in a couple of weeks if that’s cool. When we do it, maybe we can reference the points in this thread so that nothing gets passed over.
The alternative, of course, is to do a private convo. But I’m thinking that the podcast would be cool since we’ve got tons of readers who never post and may want to hear what happens and benefit from any knowledge that comes of it.
Xian, I got slammed again this week with all the events, etc., but I really will try to call you this week, now that most of the work is over (still counting and paying bills though :) ). Looking forward to August!