Margaret Cho’s “Asian Adjacent”

26 05 2013

In late 2011, comedienne Margaret Cho released a song, “Asian Adjacent” (on album “Cho Dependent”) with an accompanying video.  (Obviously, I am late to notice.)  Somehow, a humorous, yet seductive song and video offer great commentary on Americans’ obsessions with categorizing people by race and ethnicity (and all of the associated stereotypes).  This is manifest in having to place people whose races or ethnicities are ambiguous or difficult to determine.  (From Urban Dictionary: “It means someone who looks kind of Asian, and might be somewhat, but not quite there.”)   It’s pretty neat, and very catchy!

See the video below, followed by the lyrics.

“Asian Adjacent” by Margaret Cho

Do people ask you what you are
Because you eyes
and your hair are dark?
Or you’re not exactly white
But I can’t say “you’re black”

Your friends say you are polite
and the girls always got your back

I wondered what the look on their face meant
I think you are Asian adjacent

You might be a Mexican
or a Cherokee
Or perhaps you’re just a nice racial potpourri

You got one of those faces
And almond shanty eyes
You could be from lots of places
Like Alaska or Ha-Ha-Hawaii

I wondered what the look on their face meant
I think you are Asian adjacent
Asian Adjacent

You’re busy, not complacent
Is it because you are Asian adjacent?
Asian adjacent

Your immigration must be recent
You manners are so, so decent
Sometimes you speak with a slight accent

Always eternally young
You’ll never look ancient
You are racially ambivalent
Asian adjacent

I wondered what the look on their face meant
I think you are Asian adjacent (x2)
Asian adjacent

Is it because you’re Asian adjacent?
Asian adjacent

UPDATE (05-26-13 3:40pm): Margaret (@margaretcho) was kind enough to repost my tweet from this blog post on Twitter, and noted: “@grollman I love this song!  With @grantleephillips directed by @taniikeda.”  I am trying not to geek out about communicating with Margaret Cho…





Just A Different Kind Of Terrorism For America’s Scapegoats

21 04 2013

When I first heard the news about the bombings, I felt what most of the US felt: “Oh, no!  That is tragic.”  Grief for the families.  Curiosity about who did it and why.  And, concern for what this means for the country moving forward.

Then, as the media began speculating about who the suspects are, I lost interest.  I still feel the same ache in my heart for the victims and their families, and the city of Boston as a whole.  But, I was not glued to my television, computer, or Twitter account any longer.

It was in talking with my parents about the bombings that I realized why.  The speculation quickly dissolved into the guessing game regarding the suspects’ race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion.  We tried to figure out why these characteristics matter.  Ah — America needs a scapegoat.

It Doesn’t Matter

Please don’t let it be a Muslim!”  “They hardly look dark-skinned to me.”  The media and the rest of the country became obsessed.  For members of demonized groups, the suspects’ background matter because of what may come.  If this turned out to be a repeat of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the US might again overflow with racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.  If the suspects were Black, America might wave it’s finger and exclaim, “see, I told you Blacks are violent criminals!”

One aspect of being a stigmatized group is being treated as an indistinguishable mass.  The actions of one Latino man are treated as further proof that all Latina/os do that same act.  But, the suspects’ white racial identity end up saying nothing about whites as a group.  They are seen as individuals who acted independent of group interests or dispositions.  In fact, now that so much attention has highlighted on this double standard, efforts are being made to recast the suspects as off-white or something else all together.  We must preserve the purity of whiteness!

But, sadly, the suspects’ background actually changes nothing.  Muslims are still stereotyped as terrorists.  Black people are still stereotyped as being prone to violence and crime.  Latina/os are still stereotyped as “illegal” immigrants.  And “white people” are still comprised of unique individuals.

It Does Matter

Prejudice is a funny thing.  It is stubborn and rash.  If there were a group of people who deeply hated the color blue, they would insist that the sky is red.  Or, they might even say that they don’t see color.

Even with pictures of the two identified bombing suspects, mainstream America persisted in making this tragedy a case about international affairs, race, immigration, and religious-based terrorism.  The suspects were described in ways that either heightened the importance of race or twisted the reality of their racial and ethnic background.  Innocent bystanders and even victims with brown skin were identified by the media as possible suspects.  Some in congress have made this an issue about immigration.

The slightest infraction, then, serves to justify further demonizing immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, and religious minorities.  Even feminists and LGBT people have been named as possible scapegoats.  Yet, this case reminds us that infractions can be created even when they do not exist.  These white suspects have given further justification for racism and xenophobia.  Huh?

And, yet again, terrorist acts are being used to terrorize minorities, ironically indiscriminately.  Any person with the slightest shade of brown skin could be subject to harassment and discrimination.  Racist and xenophobic America once again has an excuse to terrorize the minorities.

We Got ‘Em!  A Cause For Celebration

With the apprehension of the second of the two suspects after a prolonged search, Boston and much of the rest of America breathed a sigh of relief.  We got ‘em!  Pictures of people waving American flags and singing the national anthem filled my Twitter feed.  Yes, the capture of two young adult men who terrorized a major US city was certainly a cause for patriotic celebration.

Indeed, for some, this was the first major terror attack since the 9/11 attacks.  Huh?  Either we really do lack a consensus on what counts as “terrorism,” or mainstream America has a bad case of amnesia.  Or, maybe it’s just selective amnesia:

The legal, academic, and dominant cultural definitions of terrorism aside, there have been many violent attacks before and since the 9/11 attacks — acts which serve to create terror.  I am hesitant to believe that the US faces any more or less terrorism than in the past.

Beyond that,  I felt relief when the second suspect was caught, but “Ohhhh, sayyyy cannn youuuu seeeeee” was not flowing out of my mouth for two major reasons.  First, the Boston bombings do not seem all that extraordinary to me.  Look again at the (incomplete) lists of terrorist attacks that came to mind.  Such big acts of violence actually seem like a pretty regular part of life in America.  We certainly have it good (in terms of safety) compared to places where bombings are a regular occurrence.  But, for places in the US that are entrenched with regular crime and violence, I have to wonder if they were phased by the Boston bombings.  (I bet their entire city is not shut down for the frequent “manhunts” for violent criminals.)

Second, I do not feel any more or less free from terrorism following the closure to the Boston case.  The Boston bombings were just a different kind of terrorism for me.  They serve as an act that supplement the regular vulnerability to being terrorized as a brown queer person in a racist, sexist, heterosexist, and classist country.  Whether I am truly an American remains questioned, my status as a citizen is still not fully realized, and I am no more protected from violence and discrimination.  In fact, these events sparked greater possible threat to my safety and rights.

Concluding Thoughts

Sadly, that what is at stake for this case depends upon the race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion of the terrorist behind the bombings in Boston tells us that America still has a race problem.  The sense of dread that members of demonized groups felt that the suspects may be “one of their own” highlights the ease with which stereotypes are considered confirmed.  Minority groups are treated as a monolithic mass, while privileged groups continue to enjoy the luxury of individuality.  Where ever there is uncertainty, or room for doubt or speculation, mainstream America’s prejudices fill in the gaps, standing in as facts.  Such prejudices are so strong that they will not only create truths, but also alter or completely counter evidence that says otherwise.

Let’s look at America before the bombings and, now, today as the case comes to a close.  Nothing has changed.  The country still suffers from racism and xenophobia.  It’s just using a new excuse to terrorize its scapegoats: “you made me do this to you.”





On Doubting And Denying Each Other’s Experiences and Perspectives

5 03 2013

The recent sociological blog debate on the supposed era of post-racism still weighs on my mind today, even as the conversation has tapered off.  Beyond arguing against this idealistic (and limited) vision of post-racism, I have reflected a great deal on how we have talked about race and racism, and the barriers that seemed to have gotten in the way of meaningful dialogue.

I have reflected upon how others have perceived me or even gone to the extent of criticizing me.  Most recently, I heard that some of my fellow graduate students dubbed me overly-sensitive.  I am used to this critique.  But, I joked with some of my friends that I must have gone “soft” over the years; I was labeled “militant” within my first year of graduate school, and then “uppity” by my third year.  Now, in my sixth and final year, I am merely “overly-sensitive.”

Doubting And Dismissing

Initially, it is upsetting to have fellow scholars — who are, by training, critical of the social world — lazily dismiss your critique of oppressive and unequal practices as sensitivity.  But, I learned to make peace with the reality that making friends in the academy is a bonus, not a given (this is not college!), and privileged and oppressed people come to academia for very different reasons.  Though we get the same training and do similar tasks (i.e., research, teaching, service), these are means to different ends.

So, I have grown used to the criticisms of unsympathetic privileged individuals — purportedly-liberal whites, heterosexuals, men, those of the middle-class, and those born in the US.  This weekend, it donned on me that the criticisms that have stood out in my mind, those with which I struggle for some time, are those from fellow marginalized group members — people of color and LGBT folks in particular.

Doubt And Dismissal By Other Marginalized Individuals

Obviously, the recent debate with Fabio Rojas (a Latino professor who advocated the “post-racism” thesis) continues to linger in my mind.  And, I still shudder today at the thought of having a gay man (who was a friend at the time) dub me “uppity” in arguing about the persistence of homophobia and racism.

My initial concern with having another person of color deny that racism exists, or is a persistent problem, or was relevant to a particular event in question is the fear of “airing dirty laundry.”  This is particularly true for Fabio’s suggestion that we live in a post-racist era.  Whether this is true or not, I fear that whites who secretly believe this, or who are on the fence about the significance of racism today, or who are too lazy or limited in their thinking to assess for themselves, will take this “post-racism thesis” and run with it.  “You see, even he thinks it, and he’s Latino!”  But, realistically, the hunger to declare racism dead is strong enough that those kinds of folks will find the evidence they need to do so anywhere.

But, beyond that fear, it has become clear to me that having another member of your oppressed group doubt or deny your experiences with oppression or your perspective more generally is harmful and disappointing in its own right.  First, because they do not completely agree, and, second, because they deny your perspective.  Of course, this is not to say that they cannot disagree, nor that you are automatically right and they are automatically wrong.  Rather, I take issue with those who seem so set on denying the existence of oppression that they reject your experiences and perspective that challenge that ideal picture.

In the two examples I mentioned, after drawing upon my personal exposure to racist prejudice and discrimination, a fellow man of color pointed out my (justified) rage and pressed on with his argument that racism does not exist.  After describing the homophobic prejudice and discrimination I have faced, a fellow gay man dismissed me as “uppity” because I became angry that he denied that homophobia is “all that bad.”  For whatever reason, they are so tied to these post-racist and post-homophobic utopias that my experiences failed to serve as evidence of racism and homophobia, and I needed to be further silenced by trivializing my anger.

Intersections With Power And Privilege

What complicates these kinds of challenging conversations with other marginalized individuals is that we may hold other privileged identities.  The force of the blow of being called uppity was multiplied by 100 because it came from a white man.  Our shared marginalized status as gay men shifted to the periphery in my mind as I was subject to the most racist verbal assault in my life, short of being called “nigger.”

As I have since learned, the racist history of the term uppity is not widely known; however, he failed to apologize once I called that to his attention.  Rather, he pressed on to correct me: “you could also say ‘uppity bitch’ or ‘uppity faggot’; it’s not just about race.”  He was right; it is not just about race.  It is about power.  Rather, it is about disempowering the recipient of the charge of uppitiness.

In addition, axes of power drawn from institutions can complicate matters, as well.  One challenge to the dialogue with Fabio is that he is a tenured professor; I am a graduate student on the verge of finishing my training (so, I still tread lightly to prevent making myself vulnerable to backlash).  Though he has not exploited his power, and has been civil throughout the debate, he very well could draw upon his status as a professor to silence me.

In my and other students’ interactions with other professors, being told homophobia is not that bad or sexism is dead and gone, we, as mere students, can only go so far in disagreeing with a professor.  Beyond fearing retaliation, we are constrained in many ways because these conversations tend to occur on the professors’ turf and terms.  How intensely and for how long can you disagree with a professor as you sit in their office, meeting with them during the time they are available?  And, you probably met with them for their help.  Moments after you leave their office, you could witness a white professor pet the hair of another Black student and ask whether it is really hers, but, while in the professor’s office, their view that “racism is not that bad today” is Truth.

A Call For Better Support From Our Fellow Group Members

I should stress that I do not intend to demonize those individuals of one’s own marginalized group for disagreeing, or even verbalizing that disagreement.  Also, I do not care to engage why some oppressed people fail to “see” oppression.  Some may have yet to gain the necessary consciousness to see more subtle expressions of prejudice and discrimination.  For the rest, dismissing them as having internalized their own oppression is just as harmful as them denying your oppressed reality.

Instead, I call for doing a better job of supporting one another.  As marginalized people, we already face enough doubt and denial from privileged people.  I will probably spend much of my energy in research, teaching, and serving on various university committees trying to convince whites that racism still exists.  What I need from other people of color, then, is a shared safe space to be free from doubt and denial.  Let us be sure to protect a space for ourselves where we do not have to convince one another that racism exists, or that our experiences were really shaped by racism.  We need a space where we will not trivialize each other’s emotional responses to prejudice and discrimination.

In fact, this safe space is one of the reasons why marginalized folks seek out others like themselves.  It is exhausting to deal with heterosexism and homophobic prejudice and discrimination, having your rights debated daily and voted upon every election cycle, while being told your fight for equal rights is not that important.  So, LGBT and queer people find solace in one another’s company.  It is no coincidence that, given my challenging experiences in graduate school, most of my closets friends today are queer, of color, and/or working-class.

I do think that we should challenge one another, whether it be raising our consciousnesses about our oppressed reality or trying to think outside of our own perspective.  But, this is not the same as outright doubting or denying someone’s experiences or perspective.  While growing together, supporting other people of color, other LGBT and queer people, other folks from working-class backgrounds, and other women means seeing, hearing, and validating each other in a society set on making us invisible, silent, and insignificant.





Justifying Racism In The Name of National Security

6 01 2010

This past Christmas day, a young Nigerian man failed to set off a bomb on Northwest Airlines flight 253, traveling from Amsterdam to Detriot.  In response, President Barack Obama has criticized the break down of communication, as there were warnings about the young man’s increasing radical views, and security (how did he get on the plane with a bomb?).  Also, a new set of stringent security guidelines have been set by the Transportation Security Administration.  I want to first note that if it is terrorists’ goal to create terror and fear, then that failed bomb was actually a success, considering the chaos that has now been caused in the US.  This chaos includes thorough and invasive screenings of travelers to the US from 14 different countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  This guide of profiling by nation of origin is a thin veil for profiling by perceived religion, race, and ethnicity, though some conservative politicians don’t even bother with the veil:

Well, it seems I’m not tech savvy enough to figure out how to embed this video, so you can see it at Colbert Nation.

Is profiling at airport security checkpoints new?  No.  Is racial profiling in the US new?  No.  In this case, racists and xenophobes and other bigots are capitalizing on this failed attack to freely broadcast their racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Middle East views.  The stereotypes of these groups as terrorists and anti-American did not emerge out of recent terrorist attacks – they already existed, but now they are spoken openly as though the Christmas day failed bombing justifies such prejudice and discrimination.  Here’s a hypothetical: if a white man from Ireland attempted to bomb a US-bound plane, would all Irish people receive the scrutiny Muslims and other Arabs are now receiving?  Would the attention on the Irish spread to 13 other predominantly/majority-white countries?  Though the Colbert video is funny, he raises a good point: must we sacrifice freedom from prejudice and discrimination in the name of national security?  Remember when we placed thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps during WWII?





[kinsey] A More Inclusive View of Sexuality: Race, Gender, Class, Age, Etc.

23 10 2009

Originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

When we talk about sexuality, specifically our own sexualities, we sometimes fail to consider other forms of differences (and similarities) among humans.  We need to be sure to consider how our race, ethnicity, sex and gender, social class, age, ability, religion, and nationality shape and influence our sexual identities, desires, preferences, and community memberships.

The Tendency To View One Form Of Difference At A Time

Often, when we talk about difference and, more specifically, inequality, we tend to talk about one form of difference and inequality at a time.  That is, we talk about race, racism, and racial inequality.  Or, we talk about gender, sexism, and gender inequality.  It is rare, however, that we talk about how these forms of difference coexist and shape one another.

In gender studies, sociology, psychology, and the humanities, we use the term intersectionality to describe how forms of difference operate simultaneously and intersect and interact with one another.

So, for example, rather than simply looking at the experiences of bisexuals (i.e., sexual orientation), we could look at the experiences of Latino bisexuals (i.e., ethnicity and sexual orientation), or bisexual teenagers (i.e., sexual orientation and age), or Catholic bisexual immigrants (i.e., religion, sexual orientation, and nationality).

Why Is This More Inclusive View Important?

Although we can get a good sense of someone’s life experiences and sense of self just by looking at their sexual orientation or self-reported sexual identity (e.g., lesbian, heterosexual, bisexual, gay, queer), we may be overlooking how other forms of difference shape one’s life.

We are not simply sexual beings; we also have a particular race, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, age, ability, and nationality.  For example, if we were only to look at the gap in income between women and men, we would fail to see that Black, Latina, and American Indian women are at an even further disadvantage in pay relative to white men.

Simply considering one form of difference fails to paint a complete picture of individuals’ lives.

A Clear Example

As a Kinsey Confidential site visitor pointed out in a comment to the April 30th blog post, “Dine Out for Life – HIV/AIDS Fundraiser” by Natalie Ingraham, one glaring oversight in research on HIV/AIDS rates among Black men who have sex with men (MSM), who may or may not identify as gay or bisexual, is the consideration of race, or, more specifically, racism.

Two researchers found that the higher HIV infection rate among Black MSMs is not due to riskier or less safe sexual practices (i.e., not using condoms regularly and effectively), but is due largely to a smaller pool of potential sexual partners.

The researchers found that among a sample of  Black, white, Latino, and Asian-American MSMs, Black men were rated the least preferred sexual partners and perceived to be the most likely to be HIV-positive.

Thus, because Black men are considered least desired and most dangerous in terms of HIV/AIDS, they have a harder time finding partnerships with non-Black men, which severely minimizes their pool of potential partners and increases their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.  By simply considering sexual orientation, we’d see that men who have sex with men have higher rates of HIV/AIDS relative to men who have sex with women (MSW), but we would miss the racial and ethnic differences among MSMs and MSWs.

It might be a neat exercise, and certainly helpful in a self-reflective sense, to consider how your own race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, ability, age, and nationality shape and influence your sexual orientation, identity, desires, relationships, preferences, and community memberships.  And, making things a bit more complicated, think about how your sexuality shapes and influences these forms of difference in turn.