Picking up on a theme from last week...
They say that society is now equitable and that people of color have access to everything because overt racism is dead. But we live in a nation where generations of white kids see women of color as their caretakers, their companions, and ultimately, direct reports to their parents. Perhaps the key difference from slavery is that instead of just black slaves who primarily spoke english, the caretakers come from all over the world and speak many native languages.
You'd hope that this could open the minds of the children when they grow up, or even in their increasingly diverse school environments, to be more likely to embrace the polycultural spaces of urban america, but who knows. Lessons in power seem to come very early for kids - it seems like it takes a lot of work to deprogram them from assigning roles and value to their parents. I can't imagine that it's different for their caretakers, and I doubt many parents are saying "don't think of her status as below yours."
Modern day, yuppie aristocracy. Without many of the paternalistic tendencies of past generations, where hand-in-hand with slaves/servants not having the right to self-determination or freedom, some of their "masters" felt some responsibility for their well-being, in a weird, twisted way. I don't know if that's true now - labor has become even more disposable with the willing and desperate thousands needing to take jobs that take them away from their own kids, to tend to the privileged. Inequality can be measured in the benefits "professional" white women get from using the labor of women of color to facilitate their career advancement.
Clearly it's not just women, but if there is a sisterhood argument to be made over race, it still has to overcome the formidable barrier of class.
Aug 19, 2007
She Tends a Child Who Looks Like Her Employer
Kill Your Television
I visited with the one friend who has always been like an older brother to me tonight. I think I've outgrown much of his advice, though I think he still likes to give it, and I don't protest too much. And we've traveled quite a few miles together.
But it's always a bit weird to meet up with friends whose lives aren't really moving that much from where they were a while ago. This friend is different from others that I have who really seem stuck - his life has changed a great deal - but the conversations still seem sort of the same.
I don't know - it's just weird for me to communicate with folks who don't really seem as interested in what's happening in my life, though he does ask about some elements of it. Is it because they're afraid to open up weird moments in the conversation (like something coming up about politics or that sort of things like it did with the uncles and aunties)? Whatever it is, it makes me have to drop in stuff about my own life all guerilla and shit, which is just not the democracy-in-dialogue I'm hoping for.
So the other thing I'm realizing is how much some people in my generation watch TV. We don't have cable - not because we're fundamentally opposed to it or anything, but because shelling out the dough isn't fun right now, and we've gone without for many years at this point so we're not going through withdrawal. But when so much of a conversation with a friend you haven't seen for a while is derived from quotes, plot summaries, and assorted punchlines from tv shows, it makes you wonder. Television has truly replaced religion as the opiate, and I don't know how to react when this is what has replaced real conversation. I missed the show, because I wanted to, so stop giving me the play-by-play! But I did interject with a smashing Boondocks reference.
Funny thing is, both this friend and another dear friend who seems somewhat desensitized to the world, gave me DVD sets of television programs as a gift recently. I'm actually touched to received gifts and at least the first one was so on the money that it's scary, but I'm surprised that they're thinking DVDs instead of music. Then again, with all the time I spend in front of my computer, maybe I have that glazed over look that is mistaken to be from the TV.
ironic thing is, I gave him a mix today with Forbidden's Hyponotized By the Rhythm. I wonder if the irony will strike him the same way. Excerpts below:
Channels changing, nothing changing
Re-deranging, warping reality
Turn it off, it will turn you on
It's the drug of our time
Mesmerizing
Living Dying
So on goes the picture denying
We watch hypnotized
Addicted to lies
What we see is electric disguise
I am hypnotized
Hypnotized
Addicted to lies
What we see is electric disguise
We're all hypnotized
Aug 18, 2007
Ego and Those Difficult Conversations.
There's something about a certain kind of gathering of uncles and aunties in which I can't keep my mouth shut anymore. Regardless of the deep and lasting friendships they've had with my parents, regardless of how they have been the support when I've been far or further away, I just can't help myself from almost visceral reactions when they say things I find offensive - which in these circles have ended up being anti-Muslim nowadays, vs. anti-black in the past. I think with their kids growing up and going through public high schools in their small urban areas (vs. the artificial (and white) suburbia of comfortable houses that many of my cousins occupy in New Jersey), the parents have at least had to curb the biases they learned through their white colleagues and American mainstream culture because many of their kids reject some/all of them.1 But they haven't been able to do that with the biases they brought with them from (and are perpetuated by contact still in) India.
So this atmosphere prompts me to launch into a diatribe of my own, vaguely throwing in a number of related but not logically necessary issues I feel like bringing up, with an audience of fairly patient older folks (for a time). Sparing y'all the details, I think it falls somewhere between a rant and a rail, with bits and pieces of what could become a cohesive manifesto, but if I have to be objective, my argument technique sometimes resembles that of a desperate person in a sinking ship trying everything he can to reduce the water in the ship, throw items overboard that he believes may make the difference, and wholly, haphazardly, being unable to take coherent, clear, unemotional steps (i.e. make points). Somehow, I was able to bring in factoids (and emotional stretches of the truth) about everything from Mountbatten's hasty departure and creation of Partition, to philanthropy in well-off Indian communities that doesn't address issues in our community at all, the Ghadar Party, the American genocide of native peoples, the many secret wars in central/south america, the massacre of sikhs in India, the use of "American" to describe only white people, the way that we're expendable to white people until they decide to hate us, questioning loyalties to nation-states, the tired use of the "forced conversions when Muslims came to India hundreds of years ago" as justification for widespread animosity/hatred towards all Muslims now (this is going to be another post on a possible short logic argument I just worked out).... the list goes on and on. What the hell was I thinking.
The combination of ego and some knowledge is a really dangerous thing, and I can see how easy it is to walk into the trap of being a self-righteous, belligerent liberal (or conservative) who just figuratively bludgeons people into submission (or, really just not caring or wanting to engage again). I think that rather than truly value the exchange of ideas and the opportunity to share knowledge or what you've seen with someone (in a more collaborative, integrative way), in these situations, it just becomes a contest to see how many zingers or "points" I can make. But that's useless in the big picture, and if I can't master the desire to shock over substance and dialogue, my ambition to be a constructive contributor and collaborator rather than just another close-minded egoist, is doomed. I sometimes get into these situations with my own friends, but it's usually with a very particular group, and for whatever reason, something triggered the deluge tonight. Discipline, beyond just thinking about these things, is a critically important tool.
Really, the whole point of having this kind of dialogue is so that you actually can get somewhere. When you bring in everything else, it just confuses things too much to get something useful out of the dialogue. If every conversation we have is just to further convince ourselves that we're right and the world is filled with dumbasses who don't get it or care, starting with the person we're talking to, well, that's pointless. But the conversation has to more of an exchange. It's just so hard to do without losing your cool.
[1] As a tangent, these kids are different from the kids growing up in enclave-like suburbia (like Long Island, where 2nd Gen Gujarati Americans grow up with only Indian friends, in their own little slice of 'burbladesh that takes the worst of both their parents' communalism and mainstream Long Island's neuroses about so many things). The different slices of 2nd Gen Desi America are far too complicated for me to deal with right now, but I know that the generations are incredibly different, even if they are only 5 - 7 years apart.
Regardless, I think a lot has to be said about how close these ties become between Indian immigrant adults who are bound by their shared experiences here. For my mom and some of her friends, you'd think they knew each other from childhood. For adults to create such strong friendships long after they'd gone through the typical places where we make our friends (neighborhood friends while growing up, school friends, etc) is remarkable. While I've met some people over the past years who have become quite close - you just naturally don't get that attached to new people, that quickly. And especially after marriage and kids - the ability of these families to come together and to forge such close friendships is really remarkable. I mean, I feel closer to these uncles and aunties than some of my own relatives. I guess that may be why I just feel free to shoot off my opinions?
Aug 15, 2007
The Subversive Game Show: Drew Carey's Power of 10
Okay - so I was just flipping the channels to pass some time while I ate dinner tonight, and I saw this game show that Drew Carey is now hosting called Power of 10. I thought it was the same stupid show that you always see - harmless questions that an idiot could answer. But then I watched, and not only was it more interesting questions about where the American public surveyed stood on questions like "Should a girl be able to try out for the high school football team" (which Carey introduced with a brief factoid about Title XI). Anyway, so the woman was from Alabama, and one of the questions was "How Many Americans think the United States is the Best Country in the World." In what really seemed to me to be light jabbing about the South, but then turned into his bold assertion about how things with the war and everything else made people unhappy about the country was pure genius.
He made a number of comments when one of the participants said he was from New Orleans, Carey launched into a few wise snaps about FEMA, the government owing people, and at one point, saying he hoped the contestant would walk away a winner because he wanted anyone from New Orleans to walk away with dough. "Heck even if you can get what the government owes you, that would be a good thing." Few of the audience laughed, but the contestant got it and so did I.
The first question to the contestant was about immigrants - Carey started with "you're from New Orleans, and you know that there are a lot of immigrants there, rebuilding. This question is about what percentage of Americans polled think that an immigrant has to speak fluent English before they can become a citizen." In his little comments to the contestant, Carey said there were a lot of people in the US who were sick of immigrants "even though they are helping to rebuild New Orleans." It was pretty clear where Carey sat on this issue, and he even kind of made the contestant uncomfortable because he was just speaking the truth. I loved it. His awkwardness reminded me of myself in many social settings when I'm not surrounded by people open for a little healthy debate.
As long as the ratings remain high, I think he's going to have this innovative way of educating the American public about things like civil rights and making political commentary in a way that goes right past the hallowed (and cleanly separated) halls of the bloggiemart. With all the talk about how much influence blogs will have on elections and all things political, people only tune into blogs that echo their own beliefs or interests. Network TV is still a far more powerful tool. And by focusing on things a little less erudite than the Jeopardy topics, Carey's show may be making a deft play at something that only some animated shows have been able to get away with: bold political commentary in the middle of "entertainment" drivel. I'm impressed.
Aug 10, 2007
APIA Blog Network
I was asleep for a while, but I've awoken again. Sorry for the snoozing. And also really sorry that I didn't put up way earlier that the good peeps at the APIA Blog Network have listed and are rolling my posts into their fine aggregation of APIA bloggers around the net. I guess this should be a good way for me to remember why I started this thing to begin with, and to keep my love and struggles with community first and at the forefront.
Brighter than a Thousand Suns
Yesterday was the 62nd anniversary of a wholly gratuitous, unnecessary, and damning act of genocide by the American government against the people of Nagasaki and Japan. While Hiroshima is the "bomb" that more people speak of, and its dropping has been damned since the news of its horror spread, it is the dropping of the second bomb, three days later, that provides the most telling evidence that this was no mere military tactic that they would have initiated against any enemy.
There was enough time for the military to report back what the devastation and impact on more than 100,000 civilians who were killed instantaneously on August 6th in Hiroshima, to give Truman and the powers in the military to think about what the impact of a second bomb would be on the people of Japan and on the world itself. Also, it was not enough time for the people of Japan to raise their voices above the din of Japan's dying war machine to the world community, to notify and show what had happened in Hiroshima. At a time before instant communication, no one really knew what was happening out there, the horror of it all, beyond the madmen pulling the strings for the American and Japanese military.
And there is a lot of literature that claims that Japan was weakened and close to surrender at the time of the dropping of the bombs. I'm not going to get into the argument, but clearly, the point can and should be made that if the U.S. was trying to "make a point" to the Russians at the time, was it really necessary to drop a second bomb? Wasn't it overkill? Were the estimated 40,000 - 70,000 civilians killed in Nagasaki collateral damage that the U.S. was willing to take on, for the sake of putting an exclamation point at the end of Hiroshima?
And of course, I can't even fathom the decision to begin with. The way that the American government has been able to perpetrate this kind of wholesale genocide unchecked by the world community... to the point where people don't think about the human cost of these bombs, in both lives and innocence. To the point where the American people, a scant 30 years later, were able to openly, viciously, "Japan bash" because the nation's economy was on the rise and car imports were threatening the Detroit metal machines. Don't you think the bombs were enough bashing for more than a generation?
Combine utter ignorance and no sense of history, and you get the traditional American bravado about how the world should always love us. No clue about what horror people had at the atrocities, once they were able to digest what had happened. It took three days to effectively kill more than 200,000 people. When you put that scale to just a year, the U.S. numbers could outpace anything that Hitler's SS could have done in its prime.
Anyway, to read more about how the decision was made to drop the bombs from original documents, check out this link.
And think peace.
Aug 9, 2007
What's in a Label?
I've been stuck in my own headspace for a while - haven't craned my neck outside of my cave long enough to take a look and see what else is going on, or has been going on. I think while I want to get away from just focusing on the humdrum of ordinary life, I also don't want to go too negative on groups in the community (unless they're being stupid). After all, there's plenty of work to do, people are generally well-meaning, and the thing about blogging is, it's easy to write something scathing without doing adequate "real reporting." In other words, really interviewing people, getting more sides to the story than my own casual view (askance?) in their general direction, yadda yadda.
That doesn't mean I don't have opinions, or that they aren't valid, but it's also true that it just takes a few forwards and suddenly one person's opinion (with the added benefit of relative anonymity) becomes an unnecessary fire that a group has to put out. What's the point in all of this? Is it really the role of opinion vigilantes to take up the bandwidth with their marginal viewpoints and take away from people who are actually doing the work? Ultimately: not important enough. I recognize that I'd much rather be doing work than criticizing others. So... with all of that (a little bit of a reflection on where I may be going with my own orientation to community - school has taken me out of the mix long enough to remind me how much I want to be back in it - and that I don't want to cut down, I want to build up, as I think I've been repeating ad naseum lately).
Anyway - I've been thinking about what it means to be "progressive" in the Asian American community. Do I really want to use the word "progressive" to define my politics? What does that mean? Is it beyond "liberal," which in itself is getting pushed to the margins of where American political life (or at least what's on display) wants to be?
Want to mark a Democrat? Call them a liberal and laugh as they try madly to dash off the label like it was a mad hornet. But "liberal" doesn't seem appropriate for me. What's the next step from there? Is it "progressive"? Is there something beyond these terms that isn't quite at "radical" - not because I don't want to be there, but because I think it may be presumptive to put it out there that I consider myself closer to radical than "liberal"? Or is "radical" where I am, and "revolutionary" is where I'm headed? Who knows. But in this land of pre-pre-election chatter, I wonder what the political landscape of left-o-center Asian America looks like, at least on the net.
Let's take a look...
South Asians for (insert candidate here). Still working/worked by the system. Middle of the aisle all the way. Not that it's particularly wrong. It's just not my thing. I mean, let's not all be tools now. But I covered this already.
APAs for Progress. This group seems like it's got some good ideas - I really like the 25th anniversary of Vincent Chin idea. But they're also playing the whole "participation = voting/election power" thing. I don't really agree with that as the angle - focusing on legal constructs of citizenship cuts out more than 60% of our community which is non-citizen. Following that up with "we should naturalize them all!" is also not helpful, given that a lot of people have their own reasons for not naturalizing, and really, should our rights flow from legal status with the nation-state, or status as individuals or members of groups within the nation? Citizenship can be taken from you just as easily as it's given, but your personhood is yours. So, I have issues with this focus. And isn't this just some other side of the 80-20 coin? I mean, you say progressive, I say liberal, the other guy says "whoever will listen to us" - what's the difference?
I'm not going to go into the other groups right now, because I'm shooting for shorter pieces that people can actually read. But this question of what constitutes "radical", "progressive", "liberal", and "revolutionary" was around for me for a while. I'm come to just toss the labels, as many people claim to do, because they aren't that helpful, especially when so many people have different thoughts about what they mean anyway. But I get sick to tears of people buying into electoral politics as the saving grace for our communities and the work that should be prioritized. It seems like such a top-down, privileged way of looking at what's important and what people care about.
Aug 7, 2007
Racial Incongruity, Women and Children
Okay, so I've noticed the following assumptions I have about women, children, and "racial incongruity":
1) Woman of color with white child. Domestic worker/nanny situation. Major class difference between the woman and her charge.
2) White woman and child of color. Adoption situation. Doesn't matter what the white woman looks like, or where we are, but I've become programmed to think that she's the kid's adoptive mother.
3) Latina woman with Asian children. This is a newer phenomenon, but I honestly think I assume that the kids are adopted by a white third party, and then they've "contracted out" for the care of the kid.
Here's where some of these things come from. First, it's damn hard to adopt a white baby, so I just don't assume that's what's happening when I see the first situation. It's also, clearly, the way that the work of women of color has been commodicized to this extreme level that we just assume that the woman must be taking care of the kids.
For the second and third situations, it seems like I just assume that people of color abuse hire other people of color for this specific role. Co-ethnics, usually, from back home. We have a way of being the most cruel to people who theorists think we can relate to the most easily. Yeah right. The key reason why organizing on the basis of race/ethnicity alone seems much more difficult than based on system/oppression that the people are facing.
But it's interesting, because even with the Latina taking care of Asian kids, I just assume that the desi couple with money will hire a desi nanny, because they can get the "bonus" of language training, cultural competency, and hell, let's just make her cook for us too. Perhaps adding to the leisure of their own parents (not that I advocate for grandparents to have to take on the role of caretaker because that definitely can be a form of elder abuse). It's kind of crazy, the way that people think it's totally cool to add so much to the load for
But what I started with on this post is just the assumptions that filter the different things I see, especially in affluent neighborhoods. Part of me gets annoyed at my jumps to conclusions, and another part is just like, yo, that's fucked up.
Aug 4, 2007
Indo-American Leadership...
Had an interesting dialogue about the role of lawyers, even progressive/radical ones, in creating true social change over at Pass the Roti on the Left Hand Side. It's nice to be in a space where we can have a civil dialogue about different points of view, instead of backing away when the other people scream "how dare you counter us!", banning you from the fray altogether...
Jul 29, 2007
Been sort of silent on the brown side for a while. I don't know why I thought summer would provide a little calmer and easier time to write, but it ain't the case. Still, no complaints as I've spent less time in front of the computer and more time living a little. Back to the damn grind soon enough. I think I've been a little too focused on trying to write long, thoughtful pieces though (review last few months and hear the wind blow, my friends). So I may end that wish, knowing that I don't have enough time to do it.
There's a lot of stuff happening: in my life, mostly good. In this country, mostly bad. But there are some rays of hope in the otherwise gloomy landscape. I just can't believe we still have about 15 months to go until this stupid election. Somewhere along the line, we'll lose Gravel, my fave Dem to watch during the many "debates" we've already suffered through. Then what? I can relish Dodd getting red in the face as he tries to outdo people who are better funded (Hilabama) or just plain cooler (DK from OH)? Ugh. I think I'll pay more attention to baseball instead. At least there, we all know that things are getting ridiculous (although I completely didn't know that Bonds was at 754 HR already and the Mets were on top of their division).
Uh. And Gonzales bullied Ashcroft? Damn. I would have been scared of Ashcroft, even in that bed. Afraid he'd get up and start singing or something. Can't promise more to come, but let's see.
Jul 27, 2007
Postal blues.
I've been noticing some crazy changes at the local post offices. Not only have the rates changed quite dramatically (always look *beyond* that 2cent hike), but they've totally stripped other services. I usually have the stamps I need, or at least know what I have to do to get my mail to the right rate, but I can't do it without a scale. So I have to stand in an ever-emulating-molasses line just to make sure I have enough postage on something when I'm carrying the additional ounce stamp on me. When I said "you know, you should really have a scale out like other post offices" I was told that there were "severe cut-backs" and that was a fringe item. Okaaaaay. So you'd rather have more people taking up "real postal workers" time with something so inane as "I want to make sure this is the right postage" than just putting out a damn scale?
One other peeve with all of this - the international rate for a letter par avion (there's no more post by ship, by the way, so you're stuck with this). Anyway, so it's $.90 for the first ounce, and $1.80 for the next ounce. Can you imagine? So I could spend $2.70 for a two ounce letter, or I could split it into two one-ounce pieces and send it for $1.80 total instead? What the hell are they thinking??
The postal service must go. Bring back the damn pony express. That shit was faster when they were competing anyway. At this point, sending a letter is getting to be a luxury. How odd is that?
Jul 22, 2007
blogging behind a closed door.
A while ago, I started thinking about so-called net-anonymity.
On one hand, it's a good thing, giving you the option and ability to more "openly" explore facets of your writing or life, without the angst of who's reading and how can this be misconstrued. Ultimately, with a million blogs out there to read, you have to be secure that because your friends don't know it's you, someone out there will actually care to tune in. How the heck will they even find you? While I've taken the "journalling" angle a little too often lately, this site has felt like a good way to work out some of my demons, to get to a point where I can work on more original writing in a different space, which I've begun doing piece by piece (ha. pun.).
And I guess that's one of the down sides (to be brown on?) - the egoist in me still believes in ownership over words and ideas, and I'm still unwilling to release it without attribution.
More downsides... wholesale fabrication, lack of accountability, and the seedy temptation to use the written word for evil rather than your own egotistic ends are all pieces of that puzzle. Part of why I'm writing about community less and less here is because: a) what I want to contribute doesn't feel like blog material generally, b) I don't want to do it under a nome de plume, anyway. It's not the same to engage behind this wall, and c) it's really, really easy to start taking pot-shots at people and groups from behind this shade. That's a problem, especially if you really believe in openness of dialogue and building shit rather than tearing it down.
I still have a lot of thinking to do on this - but it may be that I still ask some of these questions about the national and local groups that make questionable moves, as I learn about them. If we can open up a critical dialogue in some way, so be it.
But it's just so hard to fight that temptation to point out the idiocy. I'll work on it.
Jul 10, 2007
Virginia is Not for Haters!
Today, I got forwarded this info on a shirt that some folks in the DC area have out together in response to the craziness coming out of Virginia. Order one or more today - all proceeds are going to be donated to organizations and coalitions working for change and immigrant rights in the area.
This came as a reaction to the latest in a string of rabidly anti-immigrant proposals is a county-wide measure that the Prince Willams' County Board of Supervisors is considering, which would mandate local police enforcement of immigration laws. If you haven't been up on this issue, local police should enforce local laws. When they conflate their core mission with general law enforcement for federal issues, especially this one, what results can be broken down in a few major problem areas:
1) Immigrant Communities Will Distrust the Police even more. Once immigrant communities - whether documented or not - start seeing that the police are turning in their neighbors, they aren't going to tell the police about other crimes, or useful information needed to keep the peace. This is bad, especially when community policing seems to be at such a sharp decline and the widening gap leads to abuse and
2) Profiling and Selective Enforcement. You're trying to tell me that local police, who are totally untrained on this stuff, will be really good at identifying undocumented folks from within a crowd of many documented immigrants? Please. This proposal always stinks of rampant selective enforcement based on national origin, race, religion, and ethnicity. I mean, will all the Eastern Europeans who are undocumented get the same twice over that a Mexican or Chinese person who's a legal permanent resident will get?
Anyway, so get your shirt, make your statement, then call anyone you know in Virginia and tell them to call and give the anti-immigrant crowd hell.
Sidenote: Isn't it ironic that many Southerners who are involved in anti-immigrant groups are part of something called the Minutemen - alluding to a wholly Yankee endeavor? Whatever, though. The North was full of racism before and after the Civil War, so it's all good.
Jul 4, 2007
Consumer Notes: Hindi Bindi Club?!
Had a chance, for the first time in a long time, to get some quick chores done at the local shopping center. While I hate to admit it, there's a Target in that center, and I ended up stopping by. Two quick observations:
1) Has anyone else noticed how fancy, "hip," and competitive gum companies have gotten? The sugarfree wars are on, and I just saw a new Wrigley "label" called Flare, which I picked up. The package is a slick black, with red/flame highlights, and it's more intricate than most of the other gum packs I've seen (like Orbit, Stride, etc). You go through the whole thing, and once you finally open it up, ends up that it's the old traditional sticks of gum, a la Juicy Fruit. Damn. And it's all sugarfree too. It's just too obvious that they're soft-marketing this to smokers, to replicate the cool of a pack of cigarettes. I was just confused.
2) More shocking, passing by the books, I came across a title that I had to double-take before seeing that I'd read it correctly the first time: The Hindi-Bindi Club by Monica Pradhan. The description harkens back to the "tradition of the Joy Luck Club." The website goes on to say:
For decades, they've gathered together, dressed in saris and sweater sets, to share recipes, arguments, and laughter. They are the Hindi-Bindi Club, a nickname given by their American daughters to the mothers who left India to start life anew. Daughters, now grown, and facing struggles of their own.Yeah, it's that bad.
You'd think she'd have topped off this heinous sundae with a food-metaphor-cherry, but I guess the twin ugliness of a reference to a tired book from the Asian American canon and a trite sing-songy pairing in the title does the trick. Of course, apparently, this thing is a "novel with recipes." Perfect - not only does it offer the uninitiated and mildly "curious-about-those-weird-immigrants" the ability to peer into this book (focused on the middle class experience, of course) and walk away thinking "I understand them now," but it also gives them recipes to explore the people and their culture through the food! It's Like Water for Chocolate without the troublesome and complicated magical realism (i.e. literary ambition). Pradhan probably doesn't have that particular issue in the packaging (in all senses of the word) of her story.
Haven't read it, but I expect the worst. I can't believe Bantam is publishing this kind of crap. No wonder the experimental writers, and most poets, are so bitter. Hell, this thing was on the shelf, in a prominent place, in Target. That's massive distribution.
And though I haven't read it yet, it's likely crap. Shoot me now. Read More......
Jul 3, 2007
The Difference between NetSAP and NASABA
Before I took the law school path, I used to think that of all the second generation organizations out there in desi land, NetSAP was the worst of the bunch. With events that were thinly veiled meat markets, 3-minute conversations that died when you said the word "non-profit," and the infiltration of more suits at Basement Bhangra than a sale at Nordstroms, I guess I had just cause. And I definitely dreaded going to anything where "NetSAP people" would be.
In that vein, the current -- and seemingly perennial -- flurry of vocal disgust/opposition to NASABA in the days before their annual conference has quickly and permanently displaced NetSAP from its reviled position as the most privileged and clueless organization in the community.
However, with all due (lack of) respect, while some may want to just lump together organizations as two sides of the same socially unconscious coin (I'll call it NetSABA to save space), I have a special place I've reserved for the lawyer group. Still, I thought it would be instructive to highlight a few small points where they are clearly different. So humbly, I present to you:
Five Ways to Tell the Difference Between NetSAP and NASABA
5. Over time, NetSAP events have actually become less of a meat market.
4. NetSAP actually does community service as a group.
3. NetSAP's chapters don't think the national board has gone off the deep end.
2. NetSAP leadership seems to understand what it means to be a professional organization, and leaves the policy work to people who aren't blinded by personal agendas or biases.
1. NASABA has an elephant in its logo. (Realize that was for NASALSA, i.e. NASABA's Farm Team)
With NetSAP, it was a stereotype of the membership and the events/activities that drove some of the antagonism. There weren't really specific personalities or even particular issues with the leadership. But with NASABA - it's all about specific personalities and their ability to turn personal worldviews and career ambition (such as entry-level prosecutors and big firm people) into the full-on persona of the organization.
While their events leave little more than a bad taste in your mouth if you have any public interest leaning (not because there aren't people with strong public interest or pro bono commitments in the membership, but because the leadership seems clueless about any of it). Also, the leadership has taken a highly questionable aggressive pro-prosecutor/DEA stance on something like Operation Meth Merchant - a program that so clearly stinks of selective enforcement and racial profiling that even my Mom gets that it's wrong.
The leadership should poll the members and other South Asian attorneys to see how on point their cockeyed stance has been, and how it resonates with their own membership. Hell, they should add a question about whether they really matter at all. Meanwhile, until they do something about their madness, here's the petition telling them they don't represent them. Sign it, and pass it on.
And then keep focusing on work that actually matters.
Jul 1, 2007
Red Doors: Thumbs Down.
Have been in a whirlwind of other activity lately, so haven't been able to be present here, but hell, it's summer and I'm not making excuses, just living life. Enjoyed Gravel in the Dem "Debate" at Howard. I really think he was awesome, because he made Kucinich look like a regular ol' liberal. So his little quixotic campaign is offering the most interesting element to the long and overwrought primary marathon. Gosh, I can't wait for this to be over. I can't imagine that I'll be out of school and working (hopefully) by the time election day finally rolls around. Unreal that we're still 16 months away.
Anyway, I saw Red Doors by Georgia Lee recently - one of those films on the "must see someday" list that I finally got around to. I want to be supportive, but I have to give this one 2 of 5 stars. And one of those is because as an APA film it gets an automatic star. It just didn't do it for me at all. I found the storytelling to be too ambitious with not enough going on, if that makes any sense. I didn't believe in the family or in any of the individual characters, and it wasn't a small enough movie or plot for me to just sit in for the ride. So that was a problem, because I got to the point when I just didn't care about what was happening anymore. I know that it's not fair to compare a new artist with one who is established, but thinking about something from Wayne Wang like Dim Sum or Chan is Missing or Ang Lee's Wedding Banquet or Pushing Hands, and you really see masters at work. It's a totally different thing from what I was witnessing with this film. I felt like it was flat. And I really like Asian American films (do I have to sit here and talk about the merits of Shopping for Fangs, Disoriented, or even... well I won't go as far as American Desi because of Alaudin's role in it, but still... I'm pretty soft on these films). Even though I think that Mike Kang had promoted the film as one to see because it's a filmmaker that he knows, he's being too kind on this one. Watch Better Luck Tomorrow again, and even though you'll cringe at some of it, hell, the story still drew you in. Okay, I'm panning this film, but it was formulaic, and for a 2005 film, we should be beyond the formula. Eat a Bowl of Tea wasn't even formulaic, and we had stuff like Joy Luck already. Give us a sliver of life, but make it vibrant.
Georgia Lee's first short was included in the DVD package ("Educated"), and it was actually more interesting than the feature. It had some interesting concepts, angles, techniques (like I'm an expert). But the feature didn't do it for me, and I wish her well. The scenes with Julie, the middle sister, made me really want to see Saving Face, Alice Wu's clever, sweet, well-acted film that I just thought the world of. Better luck... next time.
Jun 13, 2007
Thrash Retrospective.
I've been filling out my collection with some of the albums that I remember the most from my thrash days which I'd either sold or never upgraded from my tapes. While doing this, I've been thinking about thrash as a genre of metal, especially in relation to other genres. It hasn't fred quite as well, with most bands unable to present resilient shelf-lives, that are comparable to the more "classic" metal like Maiden or Priest. Also, the genre as a whole stagnated quickly, unlike more extreme metal genres like death and black, which seem to continue permuting to this day.
What was it about thrash? I won't go into a long exposition about the subject, leaving that direction in the capable hands of folks like Invisible Oranges (an outstanding music blog, by the way. Dude is well-informed, a good writer, and funny to boot). While there are plenty of classics in the genre, it didn't seem to extend a lot further than the die-hards, and the formula either got too tired too quickly, or people moved on.
Try listening to one of the albums again if you're a fan. One of the "real" albums. It's okay. But did the songs *really* have to be that long? I used to love long tracks. I don't know what's happened to me, but maybe it's the obligatory 20-30 minute long track that most "progressive" metal bands put out nowadays that feel like they're trying so hard to wow me that the soul of the song got up and walked right out the door. Call it Dream Theater-itis. Only a few bands can really pull it off: with Fates Warning remaining at the top of the list because of the textures they bring to their songs, and Ray Alder's rich, full vocal delivery. I guess that means I should give Redemption another chance, even with the long long tracks. Oh, and Opeth. Opeth is amazing. Thanks burnedouteyes for the intro on that tip years ago.
But Dave has always teetered on the path of self-destruction, and listening to United Abominations, the new one, I don't think I like his politics, to boot. While I thought Rust in Peace was great, I'm more inclined to stick with the first two albums, which featured Chris Poland on lead and Dave's own good guitar work. Dave's been on a mission to prove that he's back for about 15 years, and it's not sticking. He can't hold onto a band for very long, making Megadeth an obvious one-man show with extras. His singing voice leaves a lot to be desired (while Hetfield has been nursing a not-as-hip version of Danzig's demonic Elvis for 2 decades, you kind of miss Dave's snarls from the first albums. His singing isn't anything to speak of (especially when it's supposed to be emotive). He has talking and samples of himself speaking on almost every album. I can't deal with it. Why not just go the books on tape route if you want to talk so much? And one-upping Metallica, who only have one that I know of, he's up to 2 sequels on his songs already, with more possible down the path. I'm sorry, Dave, but sequels to songs in thrash suggest that you're out of material. Power metal? Progressive? Fine. Expected, even. But thrash? Live hard, play fast, don't repeat.
With all this said, I don't know if I can still listen to thrash the way I used to. It's familiar, but it's somewhat boring now. Death metal is still not particularly attractive, but it's a lot moreso with all the different elements that groups have brought forward, from the elements of songs and structures from other musical traditions (Sepultura's Roots) to the jazz influences and interludes, to the extreme/beautiful dynamics of unique groups like Opeth. It's a little more dramatic than thrash - there's more texture there, and more to sink into. And the song structures vary a lot more than the typical thrash set.
But really, Slayer, lose the leads. Or get James Murphy to guest on your next album. And Dave, just stop trying to sing. It's getting embarrassing.
Jun 4, 2007
The Other Asian American Senator
While doing some research on English-only or English as the Official Language, I came across Senator S.I. Hayakawa. I've never heard of this dude, and he was elected to the U.S. Senate to represent California in the mid-70s. WHAT? Yeah, that's right. So along with Sen. Akaka and Sen. Innouye, whose names are well known in the community as the API Senators, there's this dude, and he was elected on the mainland.
But he was a Republican. And even though I think his record is pretty shameful to the left-leaning folks who talk about representation all the time, it's crazy that I'd never heard of him. It's interesting, because his omission from the list of elected representatives makes no sense when advocates make a big deal of listing "firsts." Is that what will happen to Bobby Jindal too? First Desi Republican to be elected, and first from the South. I mean, I don't care a lick for the tool, but will we forget or omit them from the lists? If we're so willing to omit people in that way, why aren't we more conscious about how we support people and build new candidates that better represent our communities?
Anyway - Senator Hayakawa was a real character. Read more about his story
here, on the website of the group he helped to found, that focused on the promotion of English as the "Official language" of the United States. He has the dubious distinction of being the first to introduce the "English Language Amendment." Good to have second generation North Americans (he was born in Vancouver) who feel so strongly about killing the use of other languages. I guess he wouldn't have had a chance in Canada - so he found a good home in Cali.
You know - if it's a matter of semantics, I don't really have an issue with English as the "official" language, if that means that it's just a recognition in case someone doesn't get that from living in gringoland for more than 10 minutes. I think it's more a question of whether that cuts off funding for translation and interpretation in government services. It's just so funny that people focus on this issue as a matter of budgetary constraints and practicality, when it's really a question of not feeling comfortable with other languages spoken around them and the supposed "threat" to American national identity that comes from the introduction and use of other languages in the nation. Does it really cost a lot of money to provide services in other languages? Say, compared to all the pork that politicians throw around, which everyone seems fine with?
And you know, if taxpayer money comes, at least in part, from non-English speaking people, don't they have a right to services in other languages? But of course, the perception is that if you speak other languages better than English, you must not be an American citizen, or you shouldn't be. Which is ridiculous, of course. It presupposes what people think "should be" for what is. Idiots.
Anyway, now you have another famous Asian American to pin to your wall and your calendars.
May 25, 2007
More SF Docs.
To prep for the trip to the Bay, I checked out a number of docs on the area. I know I missed some good ones, but I have odd taste. So besides seeing Sucker Free City, which is not a doc, didn't make much sense to me, and was a poor example of a mid-era Spike Lee Joint (see here for my low-down), I saw these:
1. The Parrots of Telegraph Hill. Weird doc that traces a flock of parrots that's been living in SF for a while, including a dude who was sorta studying/living with/bonding with them. It was quirky, but 90 minutes of man and the birds got even me saying "save me." Still, at least I got to see more of the neighborhoods and understand them a little. Didn't see the flock when we were walking around though. Pity. They'd probably have shit on me anyway.
2. The Times of Harvey Milk. Really glad I saw this before going. I didn't know enough/anything about Harvey Milk, and he was pretty awesome. The film is 80s era, made not long after he was killed, and actually before his assassin killed himself (and the ultimate understanding that the dude, Mike White, wanted to kill a lot more people than the Mayor and Milk). Anyway - my favorite parts were seeing his victory celebrations, and hearing about how he stood up for language access for the Chinese community without asking Henry Der/Chinese Americans for Affirmative Action what he should do. That was pretty cool - wish the fuckers in councils around the country would do that now. It's LEP, stupid.
3. Piece by Piece. A doc on SF graffiti and street art. This was awesome. You must check this out. I think I even liked it more than Rize, which I really liked. I guess I missed this culture altogether, growing up in white suburban stupidity. But learning about some of the people, and better understanding what folks were doing - it just really spoke to me. The camera/doc style is uneven and shaky in the beginning (got motion sickness in the first 15 minutes) but it evens out. I really dug the respect people were giving to others, and the deaths that happened in the community were from stupid shit outside of the community. I was really touched by the way they all talked about Mike Dream - a Pinoy brother who seemed to have his shit together, and who integrated political messages into his work, and his relationships, before he was killed in Oakland in 2000.
I missed an event in SF in memory of him - which sucks. But it's good to know that there's a site that also tries to keep the memory alive. It's also really interesting how many Asian kids were involved in graffiti/street art - I think it makes a lot more sense now to me about how there are all these Fil-Am DJ crews - after watching Rize and now Piece by Piece, it seems like they were involved in hip hop culture all the way around, way back when. It's pretty amazing, and a story I didn't really know. I feel like that's one of the things that makes the West Coast really special - they were already around way early, so they were in on the foundation when shit was getting started, unlike the new people getting involved now. They helped to shape that foundational culture.
Anyway - film made me think about graffiti art in a lot of ways (not based on its actual content). Just the way that people are willing to take such risks and do crazy shit to create art, and art that will likely disappear in a day, a week, not much longer. But they do it anyway. And the tags that I wasn't a big fan of (everyone can appreciate something big and pretty) seem to make more sense in the context of the big stuff.
Yeah. I'm done with docs for a while. But check out Piece by Piece. Worth it.
Organizing - School/IRL.
I really enjoyed the tail-end of my student days in college, feeling like I'd finally found a community amongst the student government and Asian American junkies. Looking back at those days, the student government stuff was probably the most "political" of the work, with identity-based conversations that would quickly be realized as basic taking up the bulk of my time in the Asian American spaces at school. More than 10 years later, and I'm again involved in student organizing, but this time I definitely feel more like I'm realizing the dream I had to be at the forefront of some kind of movement in undergrad. Here, I feel like with the wave of work that we're doing should be deeply related to the work that I want to do when I graduate, and also embraces some of the spirit of work that I'd learned and thought about while an undergrad in a state school. About documentation and development of a strategy. About accountability and building a student movement that will go beyond the semester, or even the year for its organizing schedule, calendar, and strategy. That we can break the cycle of stall tactics that the administration knows will eventually weather any student activation around issues, based on attrition because of short attention spans, graduation, and competing interests. But when you integrate alumni organizing in the mix, suddenly you're in a place where the graduations don't help the administration anymore, because now you have angry alum with money to donate, time to commit to a committee, and a stronger sense of purpose because of denied/thwarted efforts as a student. If the right elements are combined, the nature of movements take over.
But I do miss being around very active, radical Asian Americans. The legal profession leads people to take more "rational" or tempered paths. A friend once said that I would be entering a profession that is natively more conservative. I didn't know what to make of the comment when he made it, but I definitely feel it a lot more now, even at my law school, which is anything but conservative. it's just the way that you start to think about things - using a "rational" approach towards problem-solving, and even problem identification. "Choosing what battles to fight" seems like a theme that runs through a lot of this work. And I feel like the restrictions of the bar upon your ability to do what is in your conscience (as I've learned in my last couple of classes of ethics) is also a harsh reality that you have to face. Sanctions charges and possible disbarment seem like incredible disincentives for people thinking to engage in more direct action or anti-establishment work. Can you be "out" as an anarchist and a lawyer? Can you be anti-establishment and still practice law?
After all, the revolution will not be realized by some kind of Supreme Court epiphany. The nature of stare decisis, of precedent, of basing so much of our legal practice on English Common Law are all inherently conservative characteristics of our system. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing some of the time - consistency and fairness are important goals if the system is to build any faith in the people its meant to govern/reside over. But that doesn't mean that we should just accept it and the conservative/anti-revolutionary standards that it imposes upon us. Shouldn't we have some kind of choice of the system we live in and the definitions of justice that govern our everyday existence?
So as my thinking slowly evolves and breaks free from the middle class conservatism that comes naturally (no matter how often we call ourselves "liberals" or "progressives"), the question becomes, how much of this is about self-image and hype, and how much of this is about movement-building? Do we have to put ourselves and everything on the line all the time to be "real"? I don't know - as time goes on, you accumulate stuff - not material things, but obligations and hesitation, I guess. It's when you're young that you feel you have little to lose - and honestly, more of us should feel that way later on in life. Otherwise, none of this shit is going to change. But it's a leap to take.
WTF. This post started okay and turned into some kind of stupid therapy session. Over and out.