3 Comments
For as long as I could remember, the last job I would ever want to take on was to be a teacher–even if the position was for pre-school and I just had to teach children how to color within the lines.
I think it takes a lot of charisma and self-confidence to be a good teacher. Not only are you in charge of a group of adolescents (well, that all depends on what level you teach at, but you get the idea), but you must also put yourself (personal life included) out in the open for a bunch of students to ridicule.
Okay, I’m taking the negative perspective on teaching but I have many fond memories of teasing, interrogating and attempting to fool my teachers. I remember scoffing at their ideas and methods, or just making fun of their daily outfits. Yes, this was in college and yes, I’m lame like that–but who hasn’t? It’s part of the job, right?
Or not?
Former Dartmouth professor Priya Venkatesan has publicly announced her plans to sue her students for “intellectual distress,” which ultimately led her to cancel classes for a week AND switch jobs to Northwestern. Say what?
The agenda of Ms. Venkatesan’s seminar, then, was to “problematize” technology and the life sciences. Students told me that most of the “problems” owed to her impenetrable lectures and various eruptions when students indicated skepticism of literary theory. She counters that such skepticism was “intolerant of ideas” and “questioned my knowledge in very inappropriate ways.”
Alright. It’s been about five years since I wrote a term paper with words like “problematize,” “bifurcated” and (my personal favorite) “diaspora,” so I have no idea what Venkatesan’s course was about…but I can’t be the only one to be shocked that she would take her student’s behavior so personally?
I thought teaching was also a two-way interaction: teachers provide knowledge but also expect the students to give back. Learning is an exchange between two parties, and what better kind of class is there where you don’t just fall asleep to a professor droning on in a lecture, but can openly discuss the topic at hand with the teacher? I don’t get it.
Venkatesan also blames the “hostile environment” to racism against South Asians, which she claims she wouldn’t have faced as a white, male professor. I do agree that discrimination does exist in the academic world–but to blame the students for making you feel uncomfortable? I would think that it was also her responsibility as a professor to take charge of the situation; she IS the teacher, after all. But is a lawsuit necessary to right her hurt feelings?
Oh yeah. Venkatesan also blames one female student (who she plans to name in the lawsuit) for “incessantly disrupt[ing] class with her nose-blowing.”
WOW.
3 Comments | Posted in: Current Events, Discrimination
1 Comment
On April Fool’s day, Cornell blogger (Cornell Watch) D. Evan Mulvihill wrote a satirical posting titled, “Asian Community Center to be Built Adjacent to Uris Library,” with many steroetypes, including the Center to be “replete with a Pokémon Card Trading Arena, a Mi-So Slipi Lounge, and a Chinese restaurant selling cat for consumption.” Mulvihill quickly apologized with the following blog posting: “An Open Apology for a Bad Joke.” As a Cornell alum, I meant to get to posting about this, but just never got around to this.
This past Friday (5/2/08), on the Cornell Daily Sun’s blog site, Mulvihill delves a little deeper in the issue of “Racism and the Asian Community at Cornell:”
“…A major part of the problem, as identified by a 2004 task force (A3TF) investigating A3 [A3: Asian & Asian American] issues at Cornell, is “lack of recognition and awareness of the reality, experience, and impact of racism and stereotyping as they relate to Asians and Asian Americans.”..Most Cornellians conceive of Asians as the “model minority”…One of the severe issues facing A3 individuals at Cornell is the alarmingly disproportionate suicide rate among students of Asian descent, in comparison with other ethnicities…. In the A3TF report, researchers found that professors and classmates often held A3 students up to higher academic standards, sometimes causing A3 students to choke under the pressure… the majority of the Cornell community remains at odds with robotic, dehumanized Asians who are incapable of socialization. This stereotype blinds many people from seeing A3 students as anything other than soulless study hogs. Instead of bemoaning the supposed “curve-buster,” try to befriend him or her—you will find that, deep down inside, their hearts are not made of gears and chains…”
If you didn’t know, Cornell has an undeserved reputation for having a lot of suicides. I think mainly because when there are suicide at Cornell, they tend to be pretty dramatic - there are a few bridges that connect to main campus that students can easily jump off of… which the views are literally “breath-taking. In any case, I did not realize until recently that in a Cornell student between the periods of 2003 to 2005, 50% of all the suicides at Cornell were Asian or Asian-American, even though they represent only 17% of the entire Cornell population.
Personally, I don’t recall anything overtly racist against Asians or Asian Americans while attending Cornell in the early 90s. For a school in the Northeast (compared to Californian schools), there are quite a few Asian Americans, which make up 15% of the undergraduate class of 2011(.pdf).
However, there seems to be a growing anti-Asian American sentiment on college campuses today. This past April at Dartmouth, there was a racist Asian comic printed in the school paper, and relatively recent incidents at the University of Colorado and Princeton University, and I am sure other numerous examples. I don’t know if this because of the growing anti-immigrant mood in the United States, the rising concern about China’s (& India for that matter) rise or maybe some other reason, or that I am paying more attention now that I am blogging about Asian & Asian American topics and issues.
1 Comment | Posted in: Discrimination, Observations
12 Comments
Eleven Warner Bros. cartoons that have been under lock and key for the past four decades due to their highly racist and stereotypical content recently surfaced on YouTube and now everyone is in a tizzy over what to do with them.
The “classic” videos include such gag/anger inducing titles such as ‘Tokio Jokio’ and ‘Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs’ and several were created (not surprisingly) as war propaganda during WWII. Many, including the NAACP, are calling for the videos to be returned to the vault while YouTube/Google are less inclined to pull the videos unless Warner Bros comes forward to claim copyright infringement.
A representative for Warner wrote in an e-mail message that “Warner Brothers has rights to the titles” in question and that “we vigorously protect all our copyrights. We do not make distinctions based on content.”
The cartoons, known as the “Censored 11,” have been unavailable to the public for 40 years. Postings no longer appear if YouTube is searched for “Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs,” a parody of “Snow White” and the most famous of the cartoons. But a search for “Coal Black” does find the cartoon.
Considering the viral nature of media these days, even if YouTube were to pull ever version of the offending cartoons it’s unlikely that they’ll truly disappear…so the argument is pretty much moot. But here’s the real interesting question that I pose to all you readers…and the real issue that I believe is at the heart of this controversy. How should we (as a collective society) deal with our racial history and all the artifacts that come along with it? Do we bury the offending materials and pretend they never existed or do we inject the materials into the ongoing public dialogue about race and racism in America? Personally, I’m for an honest examination of race in this country - even if that means making these videos publicly available.
Obviously Warner Bros. wants nothing more than these videos to disappear. But beyond that, what good is yielded from ignoring the existance of these cartoons? They were apart of our country’s history and a telling clue to how horrifyingly racist this country once was and, some might argue, still is. Critics will argue that these cartoons, when taken out of context and viewed without proper guidance, may serve as fooder for and exploited by racial supremisists and other seperatist groups.
What do you think?
12 Comments | Posted in: Current Events, Discrimination, Observations
8 Comments
I just came across this interesting story in The Washington Post titled, “Asian Groups Fight to Change Eatery’s Name.” There has been a popular restaurant in Philadelphia that opened in 1949, that bears the nickname of the restaurant’s original owner:
“It’s called Chink’s Steaks. The restaurant was opened by Samuel Sherman, who was nicknamed “Chink” as a child because of his supposedly slanted, Asian-looking eyes. “Nobody ever called him Sam,” said [current restaurant owner Joseph] Groh, who started working at the eatery at age 15 and later bought it after Sherman died. “That was his name from the age of 6. The problem is that the term “chink” is every bit as racist and hurtful to Asian Americans as “the n-word” is to African Americans — so much so that some have taken to calling it “the c-word.” “It’s definitely a derogatory term,” said Ginny Gong, national president of the Organization of Chinese Americans, one of several groups pressing for the restaurant to change its name. “…Groh said he likes the name because of its tradition, and does not see the need for a change. But he acknowledges, “I don’t think you could open a place today with that name.”
Well, I can understand why restaurant owner Joseph Groh would want to keep a name for tradition, but if the restaurant had been named Nigger’s Steaks, do you think he would have kept the name? If you look up chink in Wikipedia, you will definitely discover the term has quite the historic racial slur against the Chinese originally (but its use has expanded to include all East Asians). I recall being called ‘chink’ a few times while growing up on the East Coast, and definitely not liking the term at all…
In 2004, a 21-year-old Korean-American Susannah Park, the adopted daughter of white parents, campaigned to get the name of the restaurant changed. Growing up in almost all white West Virginia, she was often called ‘chink.’ Chink may not sound that ‘bad’ and is definitely not as well known as ‘nigger’ or ‘spic‘ , but I hope that mainstream America doesn’t consider the term to be used in polite language. I have to agree with the a quote in the article by Grace Kao, director of Asian American studies at the University of Pennsylvania:
“In this country, race is still largely a black-and-white issue. Asian Americans and Latinos are largely left out of the conversation,” she said. “In public dialogue, you can’t say certain things about African Americans, but it’s still okay to say things about Asian Americans.”
I definitely have to agree with the Asian American part. I think with the growing numbers of Latinos in the United States and the issue of illegal immigration, Latinos are increasingly being drawn into the “race debate.”
The name aside, the Yelp reviews of the restaurant is quite good (despite the name as many have commented), and it sounds like the restaurant makes the best damn cheesesteak in Philadelphia.
So what are your thoughts on the matter? Should Joseph Groh change the name of his restaurant? What should he change it to? When the controversy began, Groh’s mother suggested the name Joe’s. Now how “All American” is that?!
8 Comments | Posted in: Current Events, Discrimination, Food & Drink, Observations
1 Comment
I think you can figure out where this blog posting is going to go with a title like Smart vs. cool: Culture, race and ethnicity in Silicon Valley schools, as written in today’s San Jose Mercury News. California, and especially the San Francisco Bay Area, is a racially diverse region. Within Silicon Valley, there are a lot of Asian-Americans, as well as white, Latino and to a lesser extent, African-Americans:
After years of tiptoeing around racial issues for fear of invoking stereotypes, California educators are now looking squarely at how ethnicity and culture shape achievement and attitudes toward school…The Mercury News interviewed dozens of students from varying backgrounds to examine the “racial achievement gap” and a delicate question that underlies it: Why do so many kids - especially Latinos - believe “school is uncool.” The Harvard study didn’t break out the attitudes of Asian-American students, but interviews with local students indicate that many Asians think classmates must be smart - but not act smart - to be popular.
Akrypti had blogged about the Harvard paper last August as well. I’ve always been interested in educational policy, especially at a national level, when comparing the United States to other countries. When I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, I became especially interested as to how Asian-Americans were perceived.
The San Jose Mercury News article attempts to describe the different factors that apply to the peer pressures of different ethnic groups regarding academic achievement. Regarding Asian-Americans, local educators attribute academic success as “cool” as part of the “Confucian values on education, obligation to family and high parental expectations.”
According to the article, parents of all ethnic groups generally have high expectations of their kids, but the actual definition of “success” varies, where getting a C or better might be considered success for one ethnic group. One Taiwanese-American student described how her parents continued to be competitive, not only with students in at San Jose’s Evergreen - which is 46 percent Asian - but at Asian-Americans students at high-scoring high schools in Palo Alto, Cupertino and Sunnyvale. This brings back memories of my parents asking why I couldn’t get better grades, even though I was getting A’s (i.e. what about A+’s ?).
The article goes on to describe some of the efforts to combat the “stigma” of “acting white” and academic achievement amongst Latinos and African-Americans.
1 Comment | Posted in: Current Events, Discrimination, Observations
No Comments
I was on Facebook when I noticed that a friend of mine had become a “fan” of “Vincent Who?” and I thought to myself, “What is this all about?”
Vincent Who? is a new documentary about Vincent Chin, a Chinese-American who was brutally murdered in Detroit in 1982 in a case of mistaken identity at the height of anti-Japanese sentiment. More than twenty-five years later, the documentary “Vincent Who?” revisits the case and its effect on the leading Asian-American community activists of today and the future leaders of tomorrow:
“Interviewees and speakers include Helen Zia (leading activist during the Chin case), Stewart Kwoh (Founder & Executive Director, Asian Pacific American Legal Center), Judy Chu (Chair, California State Board of Equalization), Mike Eng (California State Assemblyman), Renee Tajima-Pena (Producer & Director, WHO KILLED VINCENT CHIN?), Frank Wu (Dean, Wayne State University Law School), Janet Yang (Producer, THE JOY LUCK CLUB), Justin Lin (Director, BETTER LUCK TOMORROW) …[and many other prominent Asian-Americans.]
If you happen to be in Chicago on April 19th, you can catch a sneak preview of the film during the Asian American Film Showcase: Gene Siskel Film Center, 164 North State Street, Chicago, Illinois, 5:30 PM. Here is a trailer for the documentary:
No Comments | Posted in: Discrimination, Movies
4 Comments
So in an e-mail that we all got from our fearless leader, Ernie, we got this rather interesting synopsis of an upcoming cartoon on Cartoon Network, Chop Socky Chooks:
Lets analyze why this show is freaking racist to Asians. First the offensive caricatures featuring stereotypical slanted eyes, bun hair, fu manchu whiskers, and dumb martial arts outfits. Second the name of the show, what do you get when you combine chinks and gooks? You guessed it, the name of the show, Chooks. Please help spread this around, and write emails to Cartoon Network protesting this very offensive cartoon show!
I took a look at it, and am actually amused that this person actually paid attention to this particular show as well as the mental gymnastics done to prove this conspiracy (chinks and gooks = chooks! RACIST!).
Cartoon Network has done other caricatures of Asians that could be seen as offensive, or funny, depending on how much humor you actually have, like Raj, the elephant with a badly done Indian accent in Camp Lazlo, or the Chinese engineering kid genius (who the boyfriend says is done pretty well given that he always wears flower-decorated flip flops) and Dr. Vindaloo, the Asian Indian physician in Courage the Cowardly Dog. There are also Cartoon Network shows with Asian characters that aren’t necessarily offensive (though if your head is stuck in your ass, you probably could find something wrong with them), like the Asian kids in Class of 3000. Or you can bitch about how there are very few Asian American voice actors dubbing all the anime you see in Cartoon Network (at least they’re pronouncing the Japanese names somewhat correctly…), or wonder why all the Asian animators who are actually producing these shows aren’t in a tizzy either.
Looking at the Chop Socky website, it seemed to be more of a send-up of ’70s kung fu and blaxploitation movies, and honestly, wasn’t that offensive to me. I’ve seen worse.
It also calls to mind how we need to come up with new strategies that get companies to actually change things that we find offensive, rather than just doing “feel-good boycotts” or ineffective e-mail campaigns, where people get worked up over an offensive T-shirt or TV show or random idiotic comment and scream at a multinational corporation, like A&F or Urban Outfitters. Said corporation becomes contrite (of course, after seeing a spike in sales and ratings because the boycotts give free publicity to their companies), surface changes are made, and the protestors leave, only to get worked up again when these corporations need free public advertising since their sales are dropping.
How about actually trying to get a job into these companies and start changing the culture from the inside? Or supporting companies, shows, etc. that are run by Asian Americans?
4 Comments | Posted in: Discrimination, Entertainment, Observations, WTF
3 Comments
8Asians has written about ‘21,” the movie adaptation of the book, “Bringing Down the House,” which chronicles the real life story of the primarily Asian-American male MIT Blackjack Team, and the controversy. Well, in Tuesday’s MIT student newspaper, The Tech, Alvin Lin (MIT 2004) had his editorial opinion piece published “‘21′ Discriminatory Casting Unjustified:”
“… according to the non-fiction book, the team’s Asian ethnicities were central to the plot and their ability to gamble huge amounts of money without notice. Here is an excerpt from the book: “The MIT team thrived by choosing [Big Players] who fit the casino mold of the young, foolish, and wealthy. Primarily nonwhite, either Asian or Middle Eastern, these were the kids the casinos were accustomed to seeing bet a thousand bucks a hand… For those who have seen the film, the end result was a production that whitewashed most of the real life characters, with Aaron Yoo playing a kleptomaniac as a token Asian secondary character. Think of other examples of films inspired from true stories. Would you feel okay about ‘Coach Carter’ or ‘Pursuit of Happiness’, starring Al Pacino? How about ‘Passion of the Christ’ starring an East Asian, or a blond, blue-eyed actor? I think when entertainment is supposed to be based on real life, that there is an obligation to stay true to the situation’s demographics and the real life protagonists. For example, a movie about the NBA with no Black actors, or a hospital show with no Asian American male doctors in it, would seem unrealistic. There is also precedent to this argument. For example, decades ago Broadway initially used White actresses to play the Asian female protagonist in ‘Miss Saigon,’ until they were eventually forced by the Actor’s Equity Union to use Asian actresses.”
I had been “spammed” on Facebook asking to join the “Boycott 21″ group on Facebook. At first, I thought these types of groups and commentaries were a little off base, I mean, it’s just entertainment, right? And from what I read - like on Rotten Tomatoes (32% fresh), the movie didn’t exactly get that all great reviews.
In general, before becoming an Angry Asian Man, I like to think and analyze things before I get “angry.” The more I thought about ‘21,” and the more I read about the reasoning, I definitely understand the frustration and anger as to what Hollywood did to the real life story of the MIT Blackjack Team.
And it’s not like I haven’t written about Hollywood’s racist past, especially with white/Caucasians actors “yellow face” acting, as well as my recent blog posting on Long Duk Dong: Last of the Hollywood stereotypes?. Asian-Americans should be angry and educate the ignorant about ’21’s” white washing.
For some reason, when writing this blog posting - I was reminded that when the Central Pacific Railroad joined the Union Pacific Railroad in 1869 at Promontory Point - to create the first transcontinental railroad, not one Chinese laborer was included in the famous photo, although up to 12,000 Chinese worked for Central Pacific (making up to 90% of the workforce).
Read Alvin Lin’s editorial, and let me know what you think. I also came across one of the actual MIT Blackjack Team member’s blog dedicated to his thoughts on ‘21′ - John Chang (MIT’85) (anonymized as Mickey Rosa in the book, Bringing Down the House.)
When it comes right down to it - whether or not it’s the photo at Promontory Point or the movie ‘21,’ there has been a great American tradition of historical and cultural genocide to eliminate Asian-Americans, from the 1860’s to the present, from the American consciousness. Let’s start changing this - start speaking out!
3 Comments | Posted in: Current Events, Discrimination, Entertainment, Movies, Observations
Blog RSS Blog Comments RSS
