Mickey Rooney: "I'm Innocent" PART 1/2

[Lordonlow]

Here's my response to this article. it has to be i two parts. here's part 1.

-LoL

Sacramento Bee (California)

August 25, 2008 Monday
METRO FINAL EDITION

Rooney is stunned to hear film offended;
Actor, 87, insists he never meant to insult Asians in 'Tiffany's' role

BYLINE: Stephen Magagnini smagagnini@sacbee.com

SECTION: OUR REGION; Pg. B1

LENGTH: 539 words

Mickey Rooney got heartburn when he learned why his 1961 film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" had been pulled for "Ratatouille" at east Sacramento's free Screen on the Green movie series Saturday night.
" 'Ratatouille'? Never heard of it!" Rooney, 87, said in his classic Brooklyn accent in a spirited weekend interview by phone from his Southern California home.

One of the most beloved and enduring movie actors in American history, Rooney was shocked to hear that his comic role as Mr. Yunioshi, Audrey Hepburn's cantankerous upstairs neighbor in "Breakfast at Tiffany's," had been branded racist by several Asian American activists in Sacramento.
"Don't break me up -- I wouldn't offend any person, be they black, Asian or whatever," said the veteran of 360 films. Rooney still performs worldwide with his eighth wife, Jan Chamberlain.

LoL: Rooney's reaction is fairly common, and not tied to white people only. The problem is that it is dismissive of another's (the recipient's) reality and based (solely? primarily...?) upon the basis of the "author's" intent. That is a tough nut to crack for any offended party when it comes to "words that hurt," because while intent is taken seriously in the law - by obvious comparison between murder one and murder two - there is little way to "prove" this critical argument within this context.

LoL: The result is that, for everyone involved - author, recipients, readers, journalists, editors... - this issue seems resolved by the nature of its "unsolvability." In effect, Rooney gets a default pass, and those Asians (or anyone else for that matter) who are offended at this are left frustrated. Perhaps worse, those seeking a pass under the "intent clause" now have one, thus fueling the perpetuation.

LoL: But there is one other dimension to this situation: humor. The "I was just kidding clause" now applies, and that is one that adds much more complexity. Interesting critical and polemical discussion can rage on the topic of "humor and race" alone and adds another layer of complexity. It's much too much for this reply, but severely distilled, adds another layer of protection to the "author."

To set the record straight, "Jan and I would love to do a show up there in Sacramento," he said. "We'll do it with open arms because (Gov. Arnold) Schwarzenegger is one of our friends. He might come with Maria. Let's put on a show!"

CAPITAL -- the Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership -- an umbrella group for more than 90 local organizations, told the Sacramento City Council that Rooney's bucktoothed Japanese character with thick glasses and exaggerated Asian accent perpetuated "offensive, derogatory and hateful racial stereotypes detrimental and destructive to our society."

Responded Rooney: "It breaks my heart. Blake Edwards, who directed the picture, wanted me to do it because he was a comedy director. They hired me to do this overboard, and we had fun doing it."

LoL: Here again, Rooney is invoking both the "intent clause" and the "humor clause," with an additional (sub?) clause: Sympathy. "I feel bad that I hurt someone," then is a way to, like a magician, misdirect the audience's attention away from the real action, and to look at what the magician wants them too. In this case, the focus now isn't that Asians (or whomever) are offended, it's that "Rooney's hurt." It now becomes about him and his feelings, not the feelings of Asians, much less dissenting views, of which I categorize myself. (For the record, I'm, not "offended" by Rooney's actions; many things go into that view, but suffice to say here that I've encountered this all of my life. I don't like his opinion, but it doesn't surprise nor cause me to lose sleep. My best weapon is my mind and control over my own opinions and voice coupled with whatever insight I have, plus the willingness to have an open mind and learn.)

Rooney, who occasionally shows the Mr. Yunioshi clip as part of his traveling stage show, added that "never in all the more than 40 years after we made it -- not one complaint. Everyplace I've gone in the world people say, 'God you were so funny.' Asians and Chinese come up to me and say 'Mickey you were out of this world.' "

LoL: Here we have what I call the "star factor." I assume that whatever Asians actually pay Rooney compliments on this portrayal are aware of his celebrity. That's a factor. People love celebrities, plus, they tend to be uncritical and/or don't have insight into "race matters" outside of whatever the prevailing attitudes in the zeitgeist are. Thus, when you factor in all of the other possibilities - humor, lack of mal-intent, sympathy in addition to not wanting to offend or "make a scene" - you have a lot weighing in there, social pressures that, whether a person is aware of them or not, are affecting his/her viewpoint. In this regard, and although I can't provide stats, it's my belief that Asians are very conservative. In my opinion, I do believe that our cultural heritage actually feeds into this general mindset. For instance, Asian American kids and for that matter Asian nationals, don't matriculate into the liberal arts - the very areas of study that, if one has any kind of open mind, sets one up to be critical, analytical... insofar as culture is concerned. Very few "hard sciences" or scientists for that matter, take it to that level; Stephen Jay Gould's the exception, a great fighter he was for the racially underprivileged.

LoL: Asians - both types - (stereo)typically matriculate to the hard sciences; bio, math, engineering, computer sciences... and those softer ones such as econ or psych, with the educational goal of entering med or law school. Why? Economic imperative, plain and simple. Ask any Asian kid what their parents would say if they wanted to go to film school and not fulfill med or law school. Their parents would react: "You mean we clawed our way out of a war-torn, colonized country to get here and you're gonna ... study films??? (Law's another subject here, because critical race theory, while becoming much more elevated in stature, isn't where the money is.) Thus, we end up with a large - by some standards, the largest pool of educated young people, but they're socially uncritical of the American political system. It's actually part and parcel of their educational DNA.

END 1 OF 2

[Lordonlow]

PART 2 OF 2

Rooney said he loves everybody, and his life is a testament to that. "I was born in Brooklyn, delivered by a Chinese doctor on a table in a boardinghouse on Sept. 23, 1920," he said. "I came from a poor family. My father was from Glasgow, Scotland; my mother's brothers were brakemen on the railroad. We didn't have anything but mush for breakfast."

LoL: This one's easy; it's the "Some of my best friends/acquaintances are (fill in the blank of which marginalized "Other" you choose.) Then, he evokes the "Sympathy Clause" but in another form; "We were so poor." What does that have to do with his worldview and stereotypical, offensive depiction of an Asian? Nothing. It's window dressing, and again, mis-directs the reader away from the central argument, and makes it about him.

He said he won a Bronze Star in World War II serving with Japanese American and Chinese American soldiers battling the Nazis in Europe.

LoL: See the immediately preceding. There's a slight twist here: he is valorous, a socially elevated position.

Rooney's wife, Jan, who said they love Chinese art, food, culture and medicine, explained the film role was meant to be fun. "It's terribly sad, and I feel bad for the people taking offense," she said.

LoL: This is an offshoot of the "Some of my best friends/acquaintances" ploy. He actually admires, perhaps even reveres us. Thus, he is beyond reproach. It also serves to further misdirect. In addition, another factor slips in; The Endorsement. But it's not only an endorsement, it's a qualified endorsement, after all, why would his wife marry a racist? We are then, subliminally, asked to do two things: 1) Take it that she herself is a "good person" (ie: "non-racist"), and 2) assume that she isn't crazy, mis-informed, under-informed, ignorant, uncritical, lacking in self-reflection, but simply a "good person" and that her endorsement rings true, not hollow.

"I could see him almost in tears the other day. We both were," she said. "When people feel hurt that way, it hurts us."

LoL: Again, the "Hurt Clause," and all that that entails, with a twist; this time it's an endorsement. Endorsements, by the way, carry the same principle that articles do in newspapers; they are public relations.

What offends her, she said, are issues of "animal cruelty, elder cruelty, child neglect."

"Let's go after the things that are really important," she said.

LoL: This is interesting; she does no less than four things here: 1) She proves that she is a "good person" because what person of good conscience wants to see animals and children harmed? 2) She qualifies her opinions with a character assessment, 3) She actually diminishes the feelings of people in favor of animals and other marginalized people (after all, who in their right mind would say that children are not the most marginalized of all people? And the elderly, of course are feeble, and need great fighters such as herlself...), and 4) she again mis-directs. Thus, she institutes a "hierarchy of caring."

Rooney said that if he'd known that people would be so offended, "I wouldn't have done it."

LoL: This is heresay, and again is unprovable. Plenty of people knowingly offended others "back in the day." The KKK is the most obvious example, and neighborhoods, realtors and politicians that red-lined but weren't found out until decades later a more subtle – and seldom discussed - one. But of course, Rooney isn't a racist...

"Those that didn't like it, I forgive them and God bless America," he said. "God bless the universe, God bless Japanese, Chinese, Indians, all of them, and let's have peace."

LoL: We end up with perhaps the grand-daddy of all before it; a big heart. You slap someone in the face, but you forgive them? Sew it all up with a good-hearted “Almighty invocation” and wish for "peace" - code for, "I wish this would just blow over" or "peace in my life," and you have... the very same situation in society as before this. With one distinction: Rooney’s had his say, his “day in court.” Critical Asians haven’t, at least not in mass-media, and certainly not over a sustained period of time to acquaint the masses. Mass-media simply isn’t built for this kind of analysis; it’s built for simplicity, not deconstruction. By its very definition and business model (a crucial factor), mass-media must hit the masses.

Thus, who’s going to get ink or airtime: Mickey Rooney or some “crazy” Asian activists kicking up dust?

[ktkbs]

Asian or whatever

damn martians

[Dialectic]

Just a brief note here. Some great posts, LoL, you're a fine writer and thinker.

This is also relevant to the whole Spanish slant-eye discussion on the frontpage. I just wanted to point out that it's no more just to move the analytical pendulum from the extreme of looking exclusively, or almost-exclusively, at the subjective reality of the offender to that of the offended.

Neither is a reasonable or fair thing to do in cases which are not clear-cut, such as those cases lacking subjective intent, those intended to be ironic or socially-critical, and those which were produced at another time or in a significantly-different socio-political context. Every person and every society goes through an ethnocentric phase of development as part of the maturation of their identity; to view this as "racist" or "evil" without an appreciation of social, political, temporal, economic, psychological, etc. context creates a reality in which, literally, everything can be undermined as morally illegitimate and hypocritical, which leads to either 1) meaninglessness and apathy, or 2) an arbitrary socio-political outlook in which some things and peoples are deemed "good" and some are deemed "bad" and ends up looking an awful lot like the ideologies this deconstructive approach is supposedly railing against.

[uRB4N]

I'm honestly not insulted by their displays of ignorance or racism, it's their reaction that pisses me off.

Apparently, I'm the asshole for finding it degrading.

[Dialectic]

Remember, the reaction is another discussion, because the reaction, if negative or indignant, still isn't racist.

It comes down to, it sucks being called racist when you had no racist intent (jokes, misunderstandings, performances and stories from another time).
It sucks even worse to be called racist when you were trying to draw attention to racism, and your position is actually sympathetic to your accusers (satire/parody). It sucks even worse than that to be called racist and then have people try to destroy you politically, professionally, and financially.

I've been on both sides of this shit, something many minorities, activists, and young students have not.

Many of you have not been in anything resembling such a position. There is a surprising lack of compassion and empathy and social awareness from those who consider themselves among the most compassionate and empathetic and socially aware.

Let me tell you this: liberals, advocates, activists, critical theorists, whatever you want to call people on the lookout for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, can be just as oppressive, assholish, insensitive, or even worse, than conservatives. A lot of ugliness comes out in these situations from all sides, and the only way to move beyond it is to give the benefit of the doubt as much as you can, say your piece, wish everyone well, and let it go.