Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
With all the buzz surrounding K-Town on the blogosphere, Jen over at Disagrasian warns us to tone down the joking. And she’s right — this is serious, folks. Jen warns that K-Town could invoke a new, very harmful, stereotype against Asian Men…
I applaud Jen for being vigilant in this matter. As she describes in her post, the consequences of this stereotype to hard-working, honest Asian American men is profound. We could be talking about scores of Asian men turned away by employers who require shirts be worn every day of the week — even Casual Friday! Thousands of Asian men might find themselves applying for jobs in fields where they won’t be unfairly penalized due to the anti-shirt stereotype. Do we really want our Asian brothers forced to work as strippers, cabana boys, and life guards?
Think about the self-hate and shame that will be invoked amongst decent, well-meaning Asian men when they hear phrases like, “Hey, dude, chill out! Keep your shirt on!” or “What are you, a nudist who lacks commitment?” Think of the pain Asian men will have to endure when they become targeted by new racial slurs, like “shirt-hater”, “Chippendale”, or ”nipple-flasher”. And will Asian men who take their shirts off — even while performing reasonably no-shirt activities like swimming or taking a shower – be accused of being sellouts for perpetuating the shirt-hating stereotype?
But, I do disagree with Jen on one thing: let’s put the blame where it belongs. The “shirt allergy” stereotype against Asian men did not begin with Peter Le, Young Lee or Joe Cha. No, these boys are mere symptoms of an institutional stereotype that just hasn’t received sufficient media attention until now, when K-Town finally exposed the stereotype’s full impact on our Asian brothers. These poor souls are only acting as they think they’re supposed to, because the “Asian men hate shirts” stereotype has been so deeply internalized into their self-identity. In a way, these men are heroes, for bravely shedding light on a silent oppression.
Consider how many other innocent Asian men have fallen victim to this syndrome:
So, you ask – whom should we really be blaming?
Well, I think the answer is clear — the blame lies squarely on the man who first brought this dastardly stereotype to American audiences.
That’s right: Bruce. Effin’. Lee. That frickin’ nipple-flasher.
Act Now! I’m declaring August 1st to be National Asian Male Shirt Solidarity Day. Wear a shirt and show your support. Spread the word.
"WE CAN!"'s co-chairs, Javier Herrera and Delores Grayam discuss Proposition 107. That's my head in the foreground; I'm frantically writing notes.
Surrounded by colourful posters decrying the racism of Arizona’s latest slew of discriminatory and intolerant legislation (e.g. SB 1070), a group of seven community activists — whose backgrounds appear to transcend race, class and gender – animatedly discuss Proposition 107: a November ballot measure that proposes to amend Arizona’s state constitution to eliminate “discrimination” or “preferential treatment” based on race or gender in any of the state’s publicly-funded programs.
It’s the height of Arizona’s monsoon season, yet the volunteers for “WE CAN! The Equality and Opportunity Committe Opposing Prop. 107” have willingly eschewed air conditioning and swimming pools (standard fare for combating Arizona heat in the summer) this past Tuesday evening to gather in the cramped front room of their Southern Tucson office for their weekly meeting. Speaking above the constant whir of desk fans working over-time, these seven activists describe their motivations for opposing Proposition 107 to me.
“It’s important to show that Proposition 107 was brought to the state by the same people who brought SB 1070 and the ethnic studies ban,” says Delores Grayam, the group’s registered chairperson according to the Office of the Secretary of State. Grayam serves as the group’s co-chair and historian, having worked to oppose earlier efforts to ban affirmative action in Arizona. “We’re looking at a convergence of nativists and proponents of free enterprise, who see this as an opportunity to chase people of colour out of the state by a process of attrition and harassment.”
“Not a lot of people consider Proposition 200 [and other pieces of legislation, like SB 1070] as part of a strategized plan to capitalize on nativist hysteria for political gain. But, these things are intrinsically tied together, and intentionally so,” remarks Melanie Emerson, one of the group’s organizers.
Javier Herrera, the other co-chair of “WE CAN!”, suggests that Proposition 107 “will divide our communities instead of bringing them together.” Herrera argues that Governor Janet Napolitano’s appointment to the Department of Homeland Security left a political opening for right-wing activists to force-feed partisan legislation to Arizona voters. “[The sponsors of Proposition 107] went through the backdoor to turn Arizona into a testing ground for their mean-spirited bills. We’re trying to counteract this. [We want to] provide opportunities for everybody, so that everybody can have a piece of the American Dream.”
A poster displayed in "WE CAN!"'s office that voices opposition against Proposition 107
“[This bill will] disconnect people of colour from the mainstream and roll back their opportunities,” says Grayam. “[Hispanics] in Arizona may become limited and left out from being leaders.” Herrera wonders about what Arizona will look like if Proposition 107 passes. “Are we going to have individuals [in this state] who can’t achieve?”
Emerson chimes in, noting that what drew her to the fight against Proposition 107 was the bill’s potential effect on Arizona’s female voters, regardless of race. “Women have been the largest recipients of affirmative action. We have a responsibility to speak out against this.”
Proposition 107 is the brain-child of Ward Connerly’s deceptively-named American Civil Rights Initiative. For the past decade, ACRI has used their considerable wealth to ram anti-affirmative action policies down the throats of voters in several states. Here in Arizona, I reported how the ACRI — based in Sacramento, California – spent more than $600,000 to place proposition 107 on the ballot this November. Furthermore, though the election season has barely begun, ACRI has already spent another $30,000 of their out-of-state money to mobilize their misguided campaign here in Arizona.
Honestly, when faced with the overwhelming funds that ACRI is pouring into Arizona, I felt as if the prognosis on Proposition 107 was grim. Ward Connerly was going to buy himself a vote this year; what could possibly be done to stop it?
Encouragingly, “WE CAN!” has a broad-based plan that combines efforts to obtain endorsements from Democratic elected officials and candidates, outreach to large- and small-business owners, and door-to-door canvassing to raise awareness amongst the average voter. Although the group still appears somewhat divided about exactly what their campaign’s message will be, two websites are already in the works: one that will provide information about Proposition 107 , and another (more broadly-focused site) that will invite bloggers to write about anti-Latino legislative efforts in Arizona. As for fundraising, the group plans to rely on small (and hopefully not-so-small) donations from in-state and out-of-state voters — basically anyone affected by Proposition 107.
“This is really a grassroots effort,” remarks Grayam, as she notes that the group has already received several donations from Arizonans and concerned citizens around the country.
From left to right: Emmett Alvarez (in charge of the group's outreach and messaging), Estevan Leon, and Renee Pacheco (both of whom are responsible for the group's artwork and online activities)
But, the members of “WE CAN!” insist that this isn’t just about defeating Proposition 107 in November. Citing their plans to register new voters and improve voter turnout, Maritza Broce discusses how the group can turn ”WE CAN!” into a long-lived political outreach movement. “We’re going to focus on the electoral portion [of this fight],” she says. “But, we’re also going to try to build relationships that can carry forward past November.”
AC NOW! To donate (time, money or manpower) to “WE CAN!”, swing by their office at 2111 S 6th Aveor feel free to attend their weekly meeting, every Tuesday at 5:30pm. You can also register your opposition to Proposition 107 by joining “WE CAN!”’s Facebook group.
California, Washington, Michigan and Nebraska: what do all of these states have in common?
Each of these states have been the victim of the American Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) – a deceptively named national campaign founded by Ward Connerly to work state-by-state to eliminate affirmative action programs. In each state, a seemingly benign ballot initiative is put up to popular vote that would eliminate “preferential treatment” or “discrimination” in public institutions based on race or sex. However, upon passage, the measure is used to outlaw affirmative action programs, particularly in state universities.
(As for why the numbers of White students are falling over the entire period, I can only hazard a guess. One possibility is that White applicants were less inclined to provide racial data in their applications throughout this time period, which leads to an underestimation of the number of White students enrolled in UC schools. In addition, California’s minority populations have been experiencing profound growth in the last fifteen years, further contributing to the rise in minority enrollment in UC schools).
In 2008, more than 30% of students in the UC school system were White (and another 40% were Asian), while less than 4% are Black or Latino. Yet, compare these numbers to California’s demographics by race: Asians — who make up about 12.5% of the state’s population – are overrepresented by a factor of three in UC schools. Blacks make up 6.5% of California’s population, yet they are only 3% of UC students. Clearly, race-based barriers are preventing Blacks and Latino students from making it into the state’s higher education system, even with affirmative action policies in place.
If we compare these numbers to 1993, prior to the passage of Proposition 209, we see that while Whites and Asians were still the most populous racial groups on college campuses, Proposition 209 has only served to diminish diversity on California college campuses by reducing the percentages of Whites, Blacks and Latinos admitted into UC schools while elevating the number of Asian students. In short, UC students are becoming more and more homogenized.
In fact, ACRI’s national efforts to introduce ballot measures that attack race- and gender-based affirmative action policies only serve to white-wash college campuses by reducing the numbers of already underrepresented minority students. Not only are Black and Latino students turned away in the admissions process, but underrepresented minorities who are admitted feel disinclined to attend California schools when faced with the diminishing number of other students who will share their race, ethnicity or culture — what UCLA chancellor Thomas Lifka terms a loss in “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities – which ordinarily help new students integrate into the college community and create social and support networks.
Despite these dismal statistics, ACRI counts the marginalization of Black and Latino students in higher education as a victory, and has pressed forward with ballot measures similar to Proposition 209 in a variety of states. Such ballot measures have passed in Washington, Michigan and Nebraska.
In 2008, ACRI attempted to introduce a similar ballot measure in Arizona (Proposition 104) that would have amended the Arizona Constitution to ban discrimination or “preferential treatment… on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin” in public institutions, but were unable to collect enough valid signatures to add the motion to the ballot. Instead, ACRI and its supporters decided to reintroduce the ballot measure this year after it was approved for inclusion on the November ballot by both the State House and the State Senate, and will appear as Proposition 107 (click here for the full text of Proposition 107).
California has already set the precedent for what might happen if 107 gets passed in the state of Arizona, not just to our state universities, but to our businesses and economy. In addition to what I discuss above, Susan Kaufmann, the Associate Director for the Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan, wrote this summary of the far-reaching effects of Proposition 209 in California:
Prop. 209 has resulted in the elimination of services such as college preparation programs for students of color, summer science programs for girls, outreach to minority- and women-owned businesses to notify them of government contracting opportunities, and funding for training of minority professionals in fields where they are underrepresented. It has ended the requirement that state boards reflect the population of the state and also ended numerous voluntary K-12 school integration efforts. It has led to significant decreases in government contracts awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses, hiring of minority and female university professors, and the percentages of women and minorities working in the construction trades. In addition, it has led to decreases in the percentages of African Americans and Native Americans enrolled in the University of California system and apparently to similar decreases in the California State University system.
Based on this history, we can expect the passage of Proposition 107 to have lasting negative effects in our state. The diversity of our state schools will evaporate. Our state universities, which are responsible for a significant fraction of our state economy, will experience a sharp reduction in applications from in-state and out-of-state students, particularly from students fearing a racially intolerant atmosphere in Arizona (as we have already seen happen to The University of Arizona in response to the passage of SB 1070). Federal dollars (in the form of scholarships and grants) awarded to the state specifically for the purposes of raising racial diversity in public schools and the private sector may evaporate. Gender and ethnic studies programs at our universities — such as African American Studies, Chicano Studies and Asian Pacific American Studies – may cease to exist. Businesses that rely on skilled labourers (and who are already discouraged from moving to Arizona by our abysmal educational system rankings) — and that have private hiring policies that include raising diversity amongst their employees – may be less likely to move to Arizona without a pool of promising minority college graduates to recruit and hire.
In short, Arizona stands to lose a lot of state money — not to mention, national respect — if Proposition 107 is passed. And these days, we haven’t got much of either to spare.
Sadly, the supporters of Arizona’s Proposition 107 will not reveal any of those truths to the voting public. The website established by the ACRI to support the 2008 effort to put this ballot measure to a vote openly lies to the Arizona constituency by arguing that the ballot measure would not affect affirmative action practices, when (as seen in California) the ballot measure is specifically designed to abolish affirmative action.
I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to state the following: Arizona’s students and schools are under attack by anti-affirmative action fanatics who are determined to undermine racial and gender diversity in our classrooms. Supporters of equal opportunity must mobilize in opposition of Proposition 107 in order to protect equality for all Arizonans.
Act Now! A press release issued yesterday from the Tucson Southern Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce (TSABCC) indicates that a coalition of groups (including the NAACP and the Tucson Urban League) are meeting today at 4:30pm at the TSABCC to discuss how to defeat this initiatve. I know this is short notice, but all interested parties hoping to participate in these efforts are invited to this meeting at the TSABCC . Here’s the info:
WHEN: Tuesday June 29, 2010
WHERE: Northwest Center, 2160 North 6th Avenue, Tucson, AZ. 85705
TIME: 4:30pm – 6:30pm (RSVP) your attendance (520) 623-0099
WHO SHOULD ATTEND: Every individual, group, or organization wanting to participate in this effort to defeat this initiative. Everyone who want to send a message “NOT IN OUR STATE’
I must have missed the memo that said we are still living in the 1980’s.
I am a proud blood donor. I donate a pint every 8 weeks — which is as often as a person is able to donate — because I firmly believe that this small act can help to save lives. Blood donation is quick, relatively painless, and critical to preserving the health of victims of accident and illness. If I or someone I love were in the hospital, I wouldn’t want the lack of available blood to stymy the medical treatment available to us; I want to be able to thank an anonymous blood donor for their selfless gift of blood that hopefully will save my, or my family’s, lives. The American Red Cross makes blood donation absurdly convenient, and they even reward you with cookies and sandwiches with every visit!
Yet, our national blood reserves are dwindling. The American Red Cross estimates that roughly 1 in 30 — that’s 3% — of Americans capable of donating blood actually do so. Even fewer donate more than once or regularly. Hence, I urge everyone I know to take the time to donate — even if you have an “undesirable” blood type. I’m A-positive, which is one of the least desirable types out there.
Yet, my one exception to the whole blood donation process is that nagging question asked of during the screening process: are you a male — or have you had sex with a male — who has had sexual contact with another male since 1997? Translation: are you or your partner gay?
Answering yes to this question immediately disqualifies you from donating blood — and it is based on an archaic fear that AIDS remains a “gay disease”. Because AIDS began (in America) in the gay community, there’s still a public perception out there that AIDS is only contracted by gay men through homosexual sex. This is despite the fact that thirty years of scientific research has quickly established that the HIV virus does not discriminate based on sexual orientation – gay and straight men and women can all contract AIDS through unprotected sex.
The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety — a committee that makes recommendations on blood donation guidelines to the Food and Drug Administration (which in turn tells the American Red Cross who can and cannot donate blood) — has banned donation from gay men based on statistics: they believe that because gay men are more likely to be HIV-positive, it’s easier to protect the nation’s blood supply from the virus by simply banning this “high risk” group of donors. And, it’s true that AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community. But, HIV is also more prevalent in African-American communities. In fact, the AIDS epidemic has reached such heights amongst sexually active Black adults that, in the D.C. area, it is estimated that 7% of Black men are HIV-positive. Blacks, only 13% of the national population, represent nearly half of new AIDS diagnoses each year. In other words, based on the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety’s rationale for their ban on gay blood donation, Black men and women should also be prohibited from donating blood. Yet, we know instinctively that such a ban would be racist and discriminatory.
The point is that banning African-Americans from donating blood because of higher-than-average rates of HIV/AIDS contraction within that community is as ludicrous as banning gay Americans from donating blood. HIV and AIDS does not transmit via race, or via sexual orientation. It is scientific fact that the HIV virus transmits by unprotected sexual contact, by transfusion of contaminated blood, and by sharing of needles.
If the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety wants to protect the national supply from HIV/AIDS, they should ban behaviours scientifically proven to increase the risk of contracting the virus. Just as they ban potential donors who have visited countries that have suffered bloodborne epidemics (such as Mad Cow’s Disease in the United Kingdom), they should ban all donors (regardless of race or sexual orientation) who engage in unprotected, risky sex or who are intravenous drug users.
Not surprisingly, current screening tests prior to blood donation ask if a donor has had unprotected sex (or sex with an HIV-positive partner) or uses drugs, and theoretically already weeds out those who are actually at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS without having to ask after the donor’s sexual orientation. Yet, the American Red Cross is bizarrely obliged to filter out in their screening process gay men who are monogamous, practice safe sex, or who are even abstinent — based purely on the misguided belief that their sexual orientation still puts these potential donors at risk for AIDS.
Now, I have always believed that this ban on gay blood donation is an archaic holdover from the 1980’s, and that it would be immediately overturned when examined by modern politicians. Yet, this morning, the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety voted to uphold the national ban on gay blood donation even while they called the ban “suboptimal”. The American Red Cross currently estimates that roughly 219,000 pints of blood are being turned away by this ban on gay donors. I simply cannot understand the thinking of the Federal Advisory Committee on this matter — it appears to based purely on unscientific and discriminatory misperceptions of what HIV is and how it is transmitted. Call me naive, but I simply cannot believe that such irrational and specious thinking remains at the highest level of our government in the 21st century.
I also wonder: if members of the Advisory Committee (or the Family Research Council, which released a statement in abject praise of the Committee’s decision) were in need of blood, would they still shy away from blood donated by a gay male based on hysterical, illogical fears of contracting AIDS? Somehow, I doubt it very much. So, why are these people working to prevent that much-needed blood from saving the lives of others?
Act Now!Contact the FDA today and urge them not to follow the advice of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety’s, and to lift the national ban on gay blood donation. Also, go to the American Red Cross’s blood donation website to schedule a blood donor visit at your local bloodbank, or even to host a blood drive at your office!
S. Carolina State Senator, John “Jake” Knotts, Jr., called fellow Republican State Senator Nikki Haley (and President Obama) a “raghead” on an Internet talk show on Thursday night. Haley is the GOP frontrunner in the state’s Republican gubernatorial primary, and Knotts supports one of Haley’s opponents. Knotts said:
“We already got one raghead in the White House,” John M. “Jake” Knotts Jr. said on the Internet talk show “Pub Politics,” according to the State newspaper. “We don’t need another in the governor’s mansion.”
(Knotts has since apologized, claiming that the remark was made as part of an “SNL”-style joke. As if, somehow, that makes it less racist and offensive.)
Haley has faced some seriously crazy opposition in her race, both as a woman and as a South Asian-American. She’s currently embroiled in a salacious smear campaign involving unverfiable claims that she cheated on her husband with men who support her political opponents.
And now, Haley is being labelled “raghead” — a racial and religious slur frequently lobbed at Muslim- and South Asian-Americans – based solely on the colour of her skin.
Really, I don’t know how the GOP could ever try to claim that they are the party of inclusion.
In Prescott, Arizona, an elementary school hired a local artist to paint a mural on two of its outside walls, celebrating green transportation. Children from the school were asked to submit photos of themselves; four were chosen to be featured in the mural. One of the children was a Latino boy, whose face (above) is the most prominent in the artwork.
These are the kinds of art projects that promote a sense of inclusion and community in schools. They are the kinds of projects that encourage students to volunteer, to enjoy the arts, and to learn more about green technology.
Yet, in Prescott, Arizona, residents driving by the art project were reportedly infuriated by the image of a brown face on the side of their local elementary school. The artist reports repeatedly being harassed by drivers yelling “n*gger” and “sp*c” out their car windows at him and the children who were helping him complete the project:
R.E. Wall, the artist who heads the Prescott Downtown Mural Project, told a local newspaper passersby regularly shouted racially charged comments at his group while they were creating the mural at the Miller Valley Elementary School.
“You’re desecrating our school,” “Get the ni—- off the wall,” “Get the sp– off the wall,” were common, Wall said. “The pressure stayed up consistently,” Wall said. “We had two months of cars shouting at us.”
Prescott City Councilman Steve Blair. Does he hate all Brown people, or just their elementary school-aged children?
Prescott city councilman, Steve Blair, has led the charge against the mural, speaking at great length on his radio talk show, the Daily Courier. In archives from his radio show, Blair claims he is “not a racist individual” while he simultaneously laments the insidious effects of diversity:
Blair said Wednesday diversity is a word “I can’t stand.”
“The focus doesn’t need to be on what’s different; the focus doesn’t need to be on the minority all the time,” he said.
Mistaking the central figure in the mural as African-American (it was painted from a picture of a Mexican-American student of the school), Blair complains that having to put up with a Black president (and four Black families in his neighbourhood) is enough multiculturalism for one lifetime:
“I am not a racist individual,” Blair said on a radio show last month, “but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who’s President of the United States today and based upon the history of this community, when I grew up we had four black families – who I have been very good friends with for years – to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, ‘Why?’”
In fact, Blair likens the mural to “L.A. graffiti” (because there are Black people in both the mural and L.A.?), and he argues that it is the mural, not him, that is causing the racial controversy:
“Personally, I think it’s pathetic,” he says. “You have changed the ambience of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn’t exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I’m ashamed of that.”
At least Blair is willing to admit that he wouldn’t be up in arms if the mural had depicted four White schoolchildren. And certainly, the school seems to be hoping this is true — the artist was recently asked by the elementary school principal to “lighten” the skin of the four schoolchildren (claiming that he wants them to look more “radiant and happy”).
What truly shocks me about this story is the fact that passersby in Prescott were so offended by an image of a Brown face on their local elementary school, that they rolled down their windows and shouted racial epithets against five- to ten-year-old children. The targets of their racial hatred weren’t imaginary: they were actual children at the elementary school, either depicted in the mural or helping the artist to paint it. That little boy whom Blair mistook for an African-American in his long-winded on-air ranting is a real boy.
Now, we can chalk all of Blair’s commentary up to the whimsy of conservative hate radio, but we must remember that Blair is the elected city councilman of Prescott. Blair represents all of the residents of Prescott in city matters, yet he has outright admitted that he has complete disregard for the 10% of his constituents who are Latino and Black. His abject, Jim Crow racism and hatred of children of colour (several years ago, Blair reportedly called Mexicans “taco flippers”) should not be tolerated in an elected official in 2010.
Act Now! Blair’s talk show — Daily Courier — has been pulled from its station KYCA over his on-air racism. But you can still let Blair know how much you don’t appreciate his racism. His phone number is 928-777-1100 and he can receive emails at this contact page. Contact Blair and let him know that he owes the Black and Latino residents of Prescott — and particularly the schoolchildren associated with this mural — a formal and sincere public apology.
Update: The owner of Blog for Arizona has made the questionable decision to invite me to contribute this, and other local Arizona posts, to his blog. Perhas he’s trying to sweeten me up, so I don’t whup his butt too badly at Catan tonight? In any event, this post is cross-posted over at Blog for Arizona.
I must have a really juvenile sense of humour, because every time I hear the phrase "airbender", I think about farts.
I don’t know nothun’ ‘bout “Avatar: The Last Airbender”. Seriously. I haven’t seen so much as five seconds of the cartoon. Heck, I generally avoid Nickelodeon products like the plague. Maybe that makes me a bad fangirl. I don’t know. But that’s also why I’m like a year late on blogging about the racial controversy surrounding this movie.
What I do know about Avatar: The Last Airbender is what I read about on Wikipedia. The show sounds a little bit like an updated version of Dragonball. Basically, Avatar is set in an Asian-inspired fantasy world where people are capable of manipulating the four elements: earth, air, fire and water. The main character of the show, named Aang, is an Avatar — which makes him special in a way that the Wikipedia articles fail to adequately explain. From there, it seems as if Aang (who starts out with an Airbending ability), and his animal familiar – a flying… buffalo… — embark on some crazy adventures to learn how to manipulate the remaining three elements and take out a genocidal Fire lord person.
The internal monologue of this creature: "why do I live???"
The point here is that Aang, and many of his friends, are supposed to be clearly Asian. In fact, the Avatar world is based on many East Asian (and particularly Buddhist) concepts of chi, martial arts, and reincarnation. Not having watched Avatar, I was a little skeptical of exactly how obviously Asian the world of Avatar was — until I read that in Season 2, one of the characters learns to manipulate the fifth element: metal. The idea there being a fifth natural element, and that it is metal, is a uniquely East Asian idea. So, colour me convinced — Aang and his friends are Asian.
And as any parent of colour will tell you, finding shows and toys that help reinforce positive racial identification is quintessential. As CNN demonstrated in their updated Doll Test, kids rapidly internalize racial stereotypes of good and bad from TV and movies, particularly when they aren’t exposed to any other explicit discussions of race. When kids see images on television of good, smart kids being overwhelmingly White, while bad, dumb kids are overwhelmingly Black, they make connections between personal attributes and skin colour that alter their perception of the world. Hence, when kids are shown images of identical dolls differing only in skin tone, they will associate lighter skin tone with positive attributes and darker skin tone with negative attributes. This occurs regardless of the child’s own skin colour; in the CNN doll test, even Black children demonstrated preference towards lighter-skinned dolls. What remarkable self-hate these children are learning at the ages of 2 and younger — and all because of the dearth of positive, minority protagonists in children’s shows and toys.
No child of mine is going to grow up thinking that they are ugly or stupid because of their race. If and when I am a parent, my kids will not get blonde-haired, blue-eyed Barbie dolls for Christmas. I’ll probably be the parent who buys their kids the Jade Bratz or the Quick Kick G.I. Joe. My future children will watch Ni Hao, Kai Lan until their eyes bleed.
I want my kids to think that the original Power Rangers was all about the Yellow Ranger -- all them other Rangers were just backdrop. She got the coolest Zord anyways -- saber-toothed tiger versus a frickin' stegasaurus? No contest.
So, I can only imagine how valuable a show like Avatar: The Last Airbender is to today’s Asian parents, who use shows like these to instill some measure of racial self-esteem in their children.
And I can only imagine their disappointment rage when they learned that the live-action feature film based on the show, called just The Last Airbender (because, of course, the term “Avatar” is now inextricably linked to blue cat-people), was going to star a virtually all-White cast. Both Aang and Katara, the male and female protagonists, are played by unmistakably Caucasian actors (even though Katara is actually brown-skinned in the cartoon). The studios did the same calculus here that they did for other American remakes of classic Asian films (including The Ring, My Sassy Girl, and The Departed): there’s a belief in Hollywood that while Asian stories will sell, Asian faces won’t. These film executives are sending the message: “Asians simply aren’t familiar enough — not “American” enough – for White movie audiences to relate to”.
So you end up with White-washing of Asian movies and the take-home message, yet again, that Asians aren’t good enough to be the heroes. We’re neither good enough to play romantic leads nor are we heroic enough to have elemental energy-balls shooting out of our hands. Is it any wonder that kids are colourstruck?
To add insult to injury, apparently minorities aren’t good enough to play heroes, but we’re totally bad enough to play the villains. Not like I really know anything about Avatar, but from what I’ve read, the Fire Nation = the bad guys. And lo and behold — the folks behind The Last Airbender have no problem casting people of colour in the roles of the evil Fire people. Cliff Curtis, who is of Maori descent, plays the Big Bad Firelord Ozai. Aasif Mandvi and Dev Patel, two Asian Indian actors, play Firelord Ozai’s right-hand man and his son, respectively.
Which means that TheLast Airbender is going to be two hours of eye-candy schlock, reinforcing the same tired message to kids: White = good and heroic, and Brown = evil and genocidal.
The world according to "The Last Airbender"
Not like I was rushing off to pre-purchase my Last Airbender tickets on Fandango, but I’m with Gene Yang on this one: boycott, please!?
And, while we’re on the subject, Prince of Persia (set to hit theatres this Friday) is yet another example of the White-washing of American cinema. I first saw the trailer for this movie in the theaters, and I literally (and I do mean literally — electroman can attest) yelled out to the screen in front of a crowded theatre audience, “What the FUCK?!? Jake Gyllenhaal’s not Persian!”
Jake Gyllenhaal has apparently mistaken being Persian with being almost criminally ungroomed. "Defy the future"? How about, "defy all sanity"?
You can’t fake your race with a bottle tan and four weeks of facial hair growth, Jake! Gemma Arterton, who plays the love interest of the Prince of Somwhere-That-Is-Clearly-Not-Persia, is British (although, at least she, unlike Jake Gyllenhaal, uses an accent to sound vaguely… uhm, Persian-ish?). And again, the White-washing of the cast is reserved only for the movie’s protagonists: Ben Kingsley, one of the most famous Asian Indian actors around, plays the primary villain of the movie.
Really? Way to ruin the first computer game I every played, Disney. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I’ll be boycotting that one, too.
Dear Jake Gyllenhaal: I think I just learned how to quit you.
Act Now! Join me (and a whole bunch of other angryAsians) in boycotting The Last Airbender when it hits theatres this July 2nd, and in boycotting Prince of Persia this Friday.
Yeah, I know. It's a total cliche to put a picture of Margaret Cho on a post about queer Korean women...
Are you queer? Are you Korean? Are you a woman? Do you live in the L.A. area? Do you want to be in the movies?
If you answered yes to most of the questions above (or, you know someone who would), please read on!
Nina, one of this blog’s readers, is a filmmaker who is hoping to highlight the voices of queer/Korean women in a documentary she is making. In talking about her inspiration, Nina writes:
This project sort of focuses on giving a face/voice to the stories of queer Korean women (obviously, I suppose) through filmed interviews.
I started working on this project after I realized that this is a part of the queer/Korean community that is oftentimes neglected and repressed, and growing up I found it really hard to find other queer Koreans, like me. I am hoping to represent/build a community of queer Koreans through this documentary… but the reason why I am making this documentary is also the reason why I can’t seem to find very many to interview!
I’m hoping to find at least ten people to interview (I’m restricting myself to the LA county & surrounding areas) and meet with, and I would like to represent a variety of perspectives. In particular I am having trouble finding queer Koreans who are much younger (younger than 20), much older, transgender, and mixed– though, of course, I would love to hear from any queer Korean women, even if they are living outside of this area.
Nina hits on an important problem within the APIA community: too often, the voices of queer APIAs are unheard within the larger mainstream of the pan-Asian political identity. The same is often true of the queer community: queer APIAs are either invisible, or dehumanizingly fetishized. We need more media that hope to shine the spotlight on queer APIAs, and let them tell their stories to us, unfettered.
Act Now! So, if you are interested in participating in Nina’s project, or you know someone who would be, please contact her ASAP at aperfectstrang3r@gmail.com. Also, feel free to forward this post to all of your friends and family.
Contrary to popular perception, SB 1070 will undoubtedly affect Arizona’s Asian American population.
Yet, neither conservative supporters of SB 1070, nor Democratic opponents to the bill, have identified the Asian American community as putative targets of this legislation. Democrats have not taken strides to invite Asian Americans into an anti-SB 1070 coalition; indeed, national press has painted SB 1070 as an anti-Latino law.
These efforts not only detract from efforts against SB 1070 by marginalizing in Asian Americans a small, but vocal, political group that could help raise opposition against the law, but discourages political participation within the Asian American community.
Some Asian Americans are seeking to rectify the situation. They have started an online petition — Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Against SB 1070 – specifically to help Asian Americans lend their voice to the growing movement against SB 1070. Here is the text of the petition:
We the undersigned oppose SB 1070, the bill signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. SB 1070 will create second-class citizens of those who are perceived to be foreign and undocumented. We ask that Governor Brewer and the Arizona state legislature repeal SB 1070.
The Asian American and Pacific Islander communities particularly understand the unequal burdens of this law because of the racially and economically motivated restrictions on Chinese immigration in 1875 and 1882, Alien Land laws in western states, and the unlawful imprisonment of Japanese Americans based on their ethnic heritage during WWII. Various politicians have noted that the bill is not meant to apply only to Latinos but also to Chinese and Middle Eastern individuals as well.
We believe this bill is unconstitutional. Individuals stopped for traffic violations or infractions of city codes will have to prove their citizenship to any law enforcement officer who has reason to question their status%u2014based on dress, behavior, and accents. This places an unequal burden of proof on immigrants, foreign-born individuals, and people of color, and violates the right of equal protection under the law.
We protest the criminalization of humanitarian efforts to aid undocumented migrants through provisions of water, food, and sanctuary. We further condemn the assumptions that undocumented immigrants are criminals. Most immigrants–documented or undocumented–are hard-working individuals seeking economic opportunities that are not available in their homelands due to structural and global inequities. Furthermore, these immigrants–documented and undocumented–are recruited as a result of US immigration admission policies, and/or hired by US employers.
We urge groups and organizations that were planning on hosting conferences, meetings and conventions in Arizona to boycott the state and move their events elsewhere, to explicitly protest this law. This call to observe the boycott does not extend to those coming to protest and work with local organizations to overturn SB 1070.
We additionally call for immigration reform by the US federal government that treats all people equally and provides ways for immigrants who are contributing socially and economically to the United States to gain naturalized citizenship, reunite with families, and protects migrants from exploitation and crime.
As Asian American and Pacific Islander individuals, and organizations representing AAPIs, we sign in the spirit of other AAPIs such as Yick Wo and Gordon Hirabayashi who, in challenging local and national laws based on economic and racial considerations, strengthened the US constitution and our democracy.
Act Now! If you agree with the above petition text, please sign the petition. In addition, forward the link to your friends and family. Let’s be heard, folks.
This afternoon, I attended an on-campus protest organized by University of Arizona students against SB 1070. Several hundred people were in attendance, and the protest lasted roughly an hour in the middle of the day, with people standing for as long as they could in 90 degree heat — all in order to express their displeasure regarding SB 1070. Protesters also signed a circulating petition calling on UA president Robert Shelton to condemn SB 1070, and direct campus police not to carry out the law when it comes into effect this summer.
Here are some pictures from the protest:
The crowd grew bigger over the course of the afternoon, peaking at a few hundred.
Protesters used umbrellas to shade themselves from the sun.
Some of the speakers were alright:
Like this guy, who was pretty animated.
But, honestly, some of the speakers seemed more intent on reliving the sixties’ protest era than on actually making the case against SB 1070. For example, one enthusiastic speaker argued that SB 1070 was an example of heterosexism, and would in practice be both anti-queer and anti-woman. Another speaker urged us to follow the migrant children in order to find our souls. I’m sorry, but huh?
But, as with all protests, the point is to express one’s outrage and disappointment over an unjust action. And for many protesters, that was accomplished by protest signs. Here are some great ones:
This one was easily my favourite.
A little simplistic, but we get the reference to racial profiling (in essence redndering "brown-ness" a crime)...
I still want to know: what does illegal look like?
This was by far the better side of this sign. The other side read something like "UA Abjure Nativist Hysteria" -- which requires a dictionary to properly understand
But then, there were also some protest signs that were just ill-conceived and in poor taste. I do not agree with the sentiments in these signs:
Godwin's Law!
There are so many things wrong with this sign, I don't even know where to start...
And, of course, with every protest of this magnitude, you get the haters, who come to desperately represent the “other side”. This woman accosted the local news reporters who were trying desperately not to die from sunstroke, and remarked (rather loudly), “All they want to do is to open the borders. They’re trying to take over.”
The woman in the green suffers from fears of the Brown Peril.
And we caught a picture of one dude flipping off the protest as he walked by.
Because that's the level of debate we're at right now. The two middle fingers are just above the girl's head, right in the center of the image.
All in all, while the protest had its ups and downs, it felt good to hit the streets and express my own disapproval of SB 1070. I think it’s important that those of us who spend time blogging about injustice actually make the effort to extend our activism beyond the internet. It’s not enough to just point out inequity and racism around us, we must take the time to actually enact change — even if it’s just by adding our voices with others in civil protest.
