Amy Chua Reconsidered

After all that venting about Amy Chua's crazy article "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior," I read her book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Yes, I read it. I read it and I enjoyed it, laughing at the tongue-in-cheek-ness of some of the book and frowning at the bits that still struck me as... questionable. 

The article that preceded the release of the book wasn't written by her - it was compiled by some unknown editor at the Wall Street Journal. The article was deliberately cut-and-pasted into the article that we're all familiar with and, honestly, detest. Chua didn't even choose the snarky, arrogant title of the article (Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior). However, it's very interesting to see that in the above interview, Chua states that "[She doesn't] think Chinese mothers are superior" when the caption on the cover of her memoir states "This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones." Just that sentence alone is enough to make one wonder - but wait, there's more! The cover caption continues with "But instead, it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old." Doesn't Chua now sound... less arrogant? It's much better! Chua accepts her defeat! 
This book isn't a parenting manual - it's a memoir that just so happens to be written by a mother who is Chinese. She's definitely not as crazy dictator as the article made her sound (thank goodness) and she comes across as a strict, but not unloving mother. Chua definitely still sounds like an uppity, holier-than-thou person, but she still retains enough humility that perhaps she was a bit too extreme with her parenting, and she does express some regret in her past decisions. It's a journey.

There are still things, however, that I disagree with. Like when she says that playing drums will lead to drugs. Uh, no. There's a part in the book where Chua talks about her parents and their stories, and she describes her grandmother as a (you'll get a kick out of this) a Dragon Lady. When I first read that, I was a wee bit shocked. I'd always been under the impression that the term "Dragon Lady" was kinda derogatory, belonging in the same category as the "Lotus Flower" or "Fu Manchu" stereotype. But here's Chua, using it to describe her own grandmother! I may be reading a little too much into it, and Chua's grandma may have been born in the year of the Dragon, but who knows? All I know is that she's applying cultural stereotypes to her own grandmother, and showing that it's okay to embrace and essentially perpetuate these stereotypes! Then there's this idea of training and pushing her daughters to just get the A. Get the A and everything will be fine. Get a B and you'll work your butt off until you get that A. GET THE A! I'm a little biased, having gone to schools that value learning for the sake of learning as opposed to learning to get the grade. Maybe that's why the emphasis on "getting the A" was so infuriating and confusing to me. Either way, it's still bothersome - how on earth are her children going to learn from their mistakes if they never make mistakes? 

She does, however, keep on categorizing herself as the "Chinese Mother" and makes it seem like there is only one kind of "Chinese Mother," which only furthers the stereotype surrounding an ethnicity-based parenting style. And, as we all know, stereotypes can be unfairly applied to anyone who seems to fit the bill - in this case, be Chinese. Only once in the book does she acknowledge that there are many different types of parenting, Chinese or otherwise. Unfortunately, she states it only once, in one smarmy paragraph in the very first chapter of the book. Chua highlights the diversity of Western parents and leaves them under the umbrella label of "Western parents" but categorizes the über-strict parenting style as Chinese, even going as far as to categorize an anecdotal white mother as a Chinese mother. So... basically... you are a Chinese mother (regardless of ethnic background) if you are as strict as Chua is. Not an Asian mother. A Chinese mother. To be a "Western" mother is to be somewhat free in your label, while it seems like there is one way and no other way to be a Chinese mother... Right? What's up with that? 

Chua still says that in order to be Chinese (or a Chinese mother, for that matter), one must raise one's children exactly as she did. I still have a problem with this. It's like saying that I'm not Chinese or my mom isn't Chinese because I wasn't forced to play violin or piano or get A's in every single class except gym and drama. It's just a wee bit, you know, wrong. 

In the end though, Chua has every right to raise her children as she wishes, and it's not really our place to make a pariah out of her for doing so. What's really annoying is the fact that she labels this the "Chinese" way. Of course, she hides behind this idea of "the immigrant thing." Well... Chua's not an immigrant. Her parents were. So... was adopting their strict parenting style necessary? Was it because she just didn't know any other way of raising children, and she couldn't be bothered to read up on some child psychology? It seems she did it because she was worried about future generations of children and she wanted filial piety. It's odd. 
Fun Fact: Chua's book (Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) is currently being sold in China under the title "US Mom." 
Long story short: Amy Chua isn't as bad as the article made her out to be. 

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/husband-of-tiger-mom-speaks-out-24025828
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9hTvzbo8AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx8iXyKe4-Q

Amy Chua: The Tiger Monster

 Amy Chua's recent article in the Wall Street Journal has sparked much controversy and angry outbursts from the blogosphere, Asian-American and non-AAPA. Her snarky essay, entitled "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior," was an explanation of "how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids." And here is how she did it. It's a shocker...

"Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin."

I'm not sure what's worse, her treatment of her daughters, the fact that her daughters accept this sort of dictatorship, her snooty, higher-than-thou attitude, or the fact that she states that this method is exclusively for Chinese parents. This, in her twisted mind, is the right way, the "real Chinese way" to raise robots (whoops, I mean children). The "real" Chinese way? Amy Chua states that she "[knows] some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise." Meaning that because my mom (and probably lots of other Chinese mommies) didn't raise me the same way Chua raised her offspring, my mom is not Chinese? Um...

Amy Chua is totally buying into the model minority stereotype by saying that "A lot of people... wonder what these [Chinese] parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it." She embodies this stereotype and, most horrifyingly, is proud of it, stating that "the Chinese strategy (of parenting) produces a virtuous circle" whereas the "Western parents tend to give up" and that they "can only ask their kids to try their best." She praises the (in her mind) distinctly and only Chinese work ethic, saying that is where the "math whizzes and music prodigies" come from. At the same time, she belittles the Western parenting style as being not strict enough and too "concerned about their children's psyches." (Because everyone knows that the emotional stability of your child isn't worth crap next to academic excellency...) Chua turns the model minority on its head by essentially saying that Chinese kids aren't inherently gifted - it's the parents that push their children into being gifted and brilliant. It's the "Chinese way" of having high expectations that gets them so far in academics. Chua, making another grand, arrogant statement, proclaims, "If a Chinese child gets a B - which would never happen - there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A." So really, she, as the all-powerful "mother," should be praised for the successes of her children. Chua called her daughter, Luisa, self-indulgent when she was having trouble learning a musical piece - if anything, the way Chua screams for attention and praise for her parenting style is more self-indulgent than her daughter ever was. 
 
The title that Chua slapped on her parenting method (The Chinese Way) is also concerning. The damages from this newly named parenting style will be enormous and hard to get rid of. Chua's "Confucian filial piety" method on steroids is, so far, the only example of an ethnicity-based method that is at the forefront of everyone's consciousness. The fact that it is so tied to being Chua's interpretation of "Chinese" makes the horrific treatment of the children even worse. This is not an issue of raising children a newfangled way - it's the issue of raising them the (specifically) Chinese way. For people who have never met an Asian person (let alone someone of Chinese descent) or cannot even begin to fathom the existence of this type of dictatorship (sorry, parenting), this title becomes synonymous with Chinese people and therefore, Chinese parents. It may prompt people to think that "those Chinese parents are horrible people who have no love for their children" or something along those lines. It prompts me to think that Any Chua ought to be excommunicated from the Asian-American community. 

Those poor girls...

The dangers of an article like this one is that there are no other Asian American women with that level of fame who are mothers who could contradict her. Sure, there are other Asian American women out there in the media and whatnot, but they aren't mothers or they aren't recognized for being mothers. We're now left with only one representative of an Asian mother, and it's this Mom-zilla who is "happy to be the one hated (by her children)" and resorts to "[using] every weapon and tactic [she] could think of" in order to make her daughter learn one measly piano piece. Even more depressingly, this article was published in the Wall Street Journal, which, last time I checked, was a pretty widespread newspaper. Any rebuttals to her frankly horrifying methods of "raising" children are only showing up in blogs that may or may not have as big an audience as the Wall Street Journal. Therefore the damage that this article has done will be even harder to rectify, and all the work we've done to diminish the model minority stereotype is going down the drain and into the unfathomable bowels of hopelessness. 
This woman is a monstrosity. A smarmy, self-serving, arrogant "mother" with Machiavellian "ends-justify-the-means" and "extreme tough love bordering on abuse" parenting techniques. Ironically, she mentions "all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids' true interests." Was that a shameless, self-indulgent plug for her own book, Battle Hymn for the Tiger Monster? Oops, I mean "Mother." 


Check the comments section below for further discussion!
An elegant rebuttal to Chua's techniques and the psychological damages to children that her methods will have.
More links all over the web - Especially this one.

Fresh Starts

It's the start of a new semester and the start of some new theme exploration! Yippee!
What to Look Forward To:
1. More movies! More books! More television shows! 
2. Possibly an entire section on children's TV shows and all their craziness.
3. Another collage!
But there will be less of this:

And more of this:

So there will be more of a focus on whitewashing and the positions that Asian American actors are in nowadays in the film industry than focusing on yellowface and its historical context and implications. 
Huzzah! 

Looking Backwards

Warning: Somewhat incoherent and wiggly wonderings ahead. Enjoy!
As the year/semester draws to a close, I have begun thinking about all of the things I've learned, gotten mad at, felt offended or inspired by, or that have just left me speechless. 
It's daunting, actually, to scroll back through all my other posts and summarize what I've learned. It's like completing grade school and then having to go back and remember what you did on the 100th day of school in kindergarten. Daunting.

Before I went into this study/blog/craziness, I had relatively little understanding of how Asians have been represented in the media, how they have been treated in America, and how it continues to exist today. I had virtually no idea about what it means to be Asian American. 
I'm not saying that because of this blog I've had this great epiphany and I know and understand every single Asian American's experience. Instead, I have a deeper understanding of the stereotypes that still exist today and a better understanding of why I may have perceived something as racist (with historical context to boot). 

What are the connections between social and historical forces and the representations we see?

Why is yellowface still acceptable? When and how did yellowface turn into whitewashing?

How do these representations create and/or perpetuate stereotypes that are present in our world? What is the impact?

These questions have been hanging over my head all semester, and I keep wondering if I'm answering them fully. Or if I'm keeping them in mind as I type and try to analyze the movies and television shows I see. Or if my readers even stopped to read these questions. Sometimes I'm even wondering if these stereotypes matter. I know that's a blunt way of putting it, but what if nobody else sees the things I do? Is it my job to get up on my soap box blog and tell the world about these stereotypes and how damaging they are? Do people care? I care. That's kinda why I did an Independent Study in it...
I'm also wondering if yellowface is acceptable to other people, or if it's even part of society's consciousness. I've read so many comments on the IMDB listings for the movies I've watched that have yellowface, and they all say things like, "Ignore the fact that there's Caucasian actors playing Chinese people, this movie is awesome!" Or "I don't think this movie is racist. It's so funny when the white guy imitates the Oriental!" Or "LOL i luv jake gyllenhaaaaaaaaaal!!!!!!11111!!!!1!!!!!1111111111!!!!!1" These comments make me not only concerned about the state of humanity, but also whether or not yellowface is accepted and... liked? Or is it even given a second thought except for me and a few other people? 

Look at my first post ever. I've come a long way. Seriously, I have.
Be prepared for 2011. Even more analysis and soap box soliloquies to come. 
More reflections to be posted in the comments section below!

 

Terminology. That's What.

Yellowface - the practice of putting a non-Asian actor (usually white) into makeup and prosthetics that alter the actor's appearance and make them "look" Asian. The actor will also usually employ some garbled interpretation of an "Asian" accent. 

Fu Manchu - a catch-all name for the male Asian antagonists in movies that are evil and evilly Asian and Asianly evil. Sometimes will speak with an accent, sometimes without. Often portrayed as sly, manipulative, cunning, and in some cases, with an insatiable appetite for sex, usually lusting after white woman.

Charlie Chan - another catch-all phrase for the polar opposite of the Fu Manchu. A character that is a Charlie Chan or a son of Chan is subservient, "adorable," a kiss-ass to white characters, asexual (towards anyone in any race), often portrayed with a heavy accent. 

Lotus Blossom/China Doll - a subservient, demure girl with no backbone and no feelings. Often shown as an innocent, beautiful sexual toy who is corrupted by and infatuated with white men. The accent or lack thereof changes with every role. 

Dragon Lady - the female Fu Manchu. Often has a penchant for killing people or  busting out some karate chop hands. She is fierce, cunning, manipulative, powerful and a dangerously sexy gold digger. 

The Badass Mute - also known as the Bruce Lee, or, depending on the age of the character, a Mr. Miyagi. A buff and wise kung fu master who only speaks in proverbs and remains serene until it's time to kick some ass and then meditate. Sometimes a sexualized character, sometimes not. Enforces the idea that Asian people all have the innate ability to perform martial arts. 

Model Minority - referring to a minority group who is considered "successful" in a society where the majority is not. When applied to Asians, it implies that they will keep their head down, earn perfect scores on their SATs, not make a fuss when made fun of. Asians are considered hardworking and incredibly smart in math and science, or piano prodigies. The model minority stereotype foists higher expectations on people of Asian descent to do well and be naturally good at everything, except perhaps having a backbone or be socially present in white-dominated society. 

The Perpetual Foreigner - the assumption that Asians will never fully integrate into American society because of their race, and that they will always have an accent, always be loyal to their "mother country," and never be truly American. This is more of a subconscious stereotype that serves as a backdrop to the top 5 definitions listed here. 


I'll add more later, promise. 

Charlie Chan: The Untold Story of the Honorable Detective and His Rendezvous with American History by Yunte Huang

As a hater of Charlie Chan, I went into this book knowing that I'd be reading a lot about Earl Biggers' inspiration for his series, the actual detective Chang Apana, and the historical/social forces that went into and surrounded the book at the time. I really enjoyed Huang's easy-to-understand, interesting analysis of Charlie Chan in Shanghai and other Chan films, in addition to the books and characters. I found his comparison sections between Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan especially intriguing, because I myself have been contemplating that relationship and Huang's analysis was even more eye-opening in terms of my studies here. The most interesting and thought-provoking part of the book was (for me) the section where Huang, an admirer of Charlie Chan, cites Frank Chin's essay on Charlie Chan, which clearly illustrates Chin's distaste for the character. The contrast between the two viewpoints and the surprising connections between the two really shocked me (in a good way) and it made for an even more in-depth but easy-to-understand read. However, I wasn't expecting some of the autobiographical things that managed to slip themselves into the book at all. In fact, I found them rather unnecessary and a little distracting to either the storyline about Chang Apana's life or the cultural impacts of Charlie Chan. Overall this was a great book and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Charlie Chan Pt. 2

Remember how I hated Charlie Chan so much in my previous post about him? How he's essentially a yellow Uncle Tom? Yeah, well, China loved him. China loved a fictional character created by a white man and played by a white man. After years and years of Fu Manchu movies and Fu Manchu-esque characters, why not embrace the one semi-positive character that came around? Charlie Chan was honorable, venerable, humble, and intelligent. What's not to love? 

Even if he is a glutton... desexualized... awkward... roly poly... overly subservient... speaking in pidgin English... effeminate... essentially the father of the model minority stereotype (not mention all 14 of his children).
Charlie Chan assimilates well. He rejects his "native/ethnic" garb for a Western suit and hat. Mr. Chan still remains the same wise old Chinese sage and spews "Chan-isms" that are adorable in their broken English yet incredibly all-knowing (i.e. "Man who fights law always loses; same as grasshopper is always wrong in argument with chicken." Confucius say what?). He is filled with all the wisdom of "the Orient," even if his proverbs do not make any sense at all, and no Asian proverb I've ever heard is as weird and annoying as one of Chan's aphorism. Charlie is a teetotaler, only occasionally having a sarsaparilla - if he doesn't drink, he's not exactly liable to get raging drunk and go out on a (fill in the blank) spree, is he? Charlie Chan sucks up to white people by calling them "venerable," "honorable," "distinguished..." Model minority, anyone? 

See why China loved Charlie Chan? I hate him for exactly the same reasons. While Charlie Chan is not a downright racist and negative stereotype, it is the alternative to Fu Manchu. It presents a stereotype about Asian men that they are bumbling, gluttonous, kooky eunuchs that have nothing on their mind but their work. There was nothing threatening about Charlie Chan - he wouldn't rape your women, steal your money, or try to take over the world. Several decades later, you see the beginnings of the Asian geek - the asexual, bespectacled math nerd with no girlfriend and fewer friends. While Charlie Chan is not the downright negative and offensive character that Fu Manchu is, the stereotype of the "honorable" detective is just as demeaning and painful to watch. Let me join in with the rallying cry of Jessica Hagedorn - "Charlie Chan is dead!" Good riddance! Let's all say it together - "Charlie Chan is dead, despite Yunte Huang's new book!" Ta-ta for now and forever, Charlie, you Fu Manchu foil! You're not much better than he is! 

Charlie Chan was created at a time when America was not allowing Asians to become citizens. Because there was a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment in the air, you'd think that a stereotype like the scary-sexualized and dictatorish Fu Manchu would be having field days all over the place, but no. In came Charlie Chan, showing Asians (namely Chinese) in a more positive, albeit demeaning light. In later years, after Chan had become very popular, his anti-Japanese sentiments became praised and seen as an added bonus of the character. This was when the Japanese were feared and the Chinese became the "good" Asians - the ones with whom whites could socialize.

The similarities between Charlie Chan and Hercule Poirot are uncanny. Both are rotund, "adorable" detectives. Both foreigners. Both have some funky facial hair going on. "'He was very fat indeed, yet he walked with the light dainty steps of a woman,' Biggers wrote of Chan. 'His cheeks were as chubby as a baby's, his skin ivory tinted, his black hair close-cropped, his amber eyes slanting.' Take out the 'slanting amber eyes' bit and you've got Poirot." (citation) "He was hardly more than five feet four inches but carried himself with great dignity. His head was exactly the shape of an egg, and he always perched it a little on one side. His moustache was very stiff and military. Even if everything on his face was covered, the tips of moustache and the pink-tipped nose would be visible. The neatness of his attire was almost incredible; I believe a speck of dust would have caused him more pain than a bullet wound. Yet this quaint dandified little man who, I was sorry to see, now limped badly, had been in his time one of the most celebrated members of the Belgian police." (The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Ch. 2) Here's a confession - I love Hercule Poirot. I love him for his fastidiousness and the parlor room scenes where he accuses one person, proves them innocent, and proceeds to accuse and arrest the really guilty person. But what would somebody who is Belgian think of Poirot, created by English writer Agatha Christie? Do people who are Belgian have the same reactions to Poirot that Chinese/Asian-Americans have to Charlie Chan? 

Charlie Chan is the gateway into the model minority and the emasculated Asian male, whether it is the Charlie Chan of the books, the movies, or the television shows. Annoying Crap Hall of Fame? Yes. 


Brilliant radio interview with Tom Ashbrook, Yunte Huang, author of "Charlie Chan: The Untold Story of the Honorable Detective and His Rendezvous with American History" and writer Frank Chin.
Frank Chin and Yunte Huang THROWDOWN - Frank Chin gets a little... over the top...

Broken Blossoms Pt. 2

I still can't really wrap my head around the insanity that is Broken Blossoms. I Googled reviews of the film and saw that Roger Ebert said this film "helped nudge a xenophobic nation toward racial tolerance." Excuse me? This film only opened the doors to the Fu Manchu, Charlie Chan and (much much later) Jonathan Pryce in Miss Saigon! If there was any nudging at all, it was a shove for Hollywood to monopolize yellowface and the portrayals of Asians for the next 70 years.

I wonder about the critical and public reception over Broken Blossoms as well. The novel that the movie was based on (The Chink and the Child) was actually banned from a lot of libraries based on the "scandalous" interracial relationships between the "Oriental" and the white girl, also when the presence of the Chinese (or any Asian for that matter) was hated and considered a pestilence. However, the critical reception of Burke's book was quite positive, despite the controversial subject matter. 

Everything I've found that talks about critical reception of the movie mentions the "Closet Scene," where Lillian Gish's character is hiding from her abusive father in a closet, screaming for help. Apparently, at an advanced screening, one critic had to leave the theatre after watching it and vomiting violently. Having read about the scene before I actually watched it, I was preparing myself for something awful and grotesque and capable of giving me nightmares. But no, I got a too-long, simple shot of Lillian Gish making screaming faces and turning in little circles. Hardly horrific. What's interesting to me is that I found the usage of such words as "Chink" and "Oriental" as really really horrifying. Indeed, I felt like upchucking all over the floor after seeing those words printed on the screen. It just goes to show how the notions and ideas of sensitivity have changed. When did these words become wrong, derogatory and pretty much forbidden?  I wonder if viewers back in 1919 would have been unaffected by those (now considered) derogatory words - would they have even laughed at them, or just acknowledged them as everyday phrases, a "then-modern" slang? And with the "Closet Scene?" I have watched it twice now, and I still feel unattached and almost as if I'm watching something mildly interesting on daytime TV. Granted, Lillian Gish's face is slightly unsettling - but not to the point where I'm sick to my stomach. I imagine that audiences flocked to the theatres for Lillian Gish, after seeing her in Birth of a Nation - essentially, they didn't go see the movie because they either condemned or celebrated interracial love stories. They went because of the two leading roles, occupied by white stars. I wonder if the usage of the derogatory words in the script had any affect on the people watching - if it was, was the excuse that it was Hollywood, and Hollywood could do whatever they wanted? Did this kind of film validate the awful stereotyping that Asians and Asian-Americans would continue to feel, even today? It is interesting that I am more sensitive to a few words on the screen instead of a scene of child abuse. Is this a case of hyper-sensitivity and looking for racism? Or is this just a different mindset from the intended audience? Interesting that the film itself has not changed over the past (almost) 100 years (yowza), but it's meaning and intent has warped itself as the years go by and as sensitivity evolves. 

My mentor/advisor/teacher Giselle Chow and I were also discussing the "model minority" stereotype and it's possible connection with Broken Blossoms. At first, it's quite possible to dismiss any connection between the current model minority stereotype and "The Yellow Man" in D. W. Griffith's film. The model minority stereotype didn't even really come into being until the 1960s - up until then, "Orientals" were shown to be lecherous, demonic, slanty-eyed laundrymen who killed people with hatchets and threatened to invade and infiltrate white American society. However, "The Yellow Man's" story (until he falls in love with the girl) is an interesting reflection of the most basic part of the model minority stereotype - success. Opium and loving 15 year olds aside, "The Yellow Man" has success in his economic venture - he runs a small curio shop, does well with his small business and maintains pretty good connections with his white customers. He did not rely on anyone for help or funds or anything - his moderate success is indicative of the whole "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." Even the subservience of "The Yellow Man's" character and how he dutifully gives the right amount of change, and bows people out of his shop shows a potential model minority stereotype brewing. True, he never attends any school or scores 100,000,000 on the SAT or wins a school spelling bee - but the seed of the silent, subservient, successful Asian was most likely planted in movies like this, whether it was intentional or not. What is interesting to note is that this model minority makes the wrong move by falling in love with a white girl - and ends up paying for his mistake with his life. 


To be continued...

Asian Ken Doll

     I first read about this new Ken doll from the lovely ladies at Disgrasian. However, I had read only the title of the post (Welcome to the World, Asian Ken Doll!) and thought to myself, Golly gee, an Asian Ken Doll! It's about time! I wonder what he'll look like? What will he be wearing? This is so cool! 
     And then, of course, when I saw the picture...

     Oh my god. Oh dear Lord. Spare us, please, O Mighty Ones at Mattel!
     This is not Barbie's boyfriend. This is Barbie's cousin who's got an Asian festish. This looks like... an obviously white Ken doll dressed in faux-samurai garb with facial hair and... Is that a samurai outfit? It can't be! Is Mattel striving for authenticity? No. Could they try? Yes. What's with the hair? THE HAIR?
     Take it away! Take it away!
     Why are they releasing this now? Shouldn't they have made a Captain Shang Ken-esque doll back when Mulan came out in, oh when was it, 1998? Oh they did... he's just soft and plushy... Mmm. Real "Ken" material... So Captain Li Shang, one of the few "eligible" Disney boyfriends, gets made into a shapeless, cuddly Happy Meal Toy and not into a Ken doll? Even this Captain Shang isn't the plush doll, but it's still not Barbie's boyfriend "material." Then comes along this regular Ken doll who gets some new, ugly ugly hair, a - I don't even know what to call what he's wearing - and a dinky little sword, and voila! Asian Ken doll! Barbie's new boyfriend! Ta-da! 
     Is this an example of yellowface? Because it's still the "regular" Ken model with some minor minor adjustments? Or is it an example of whitewashing? Obviously this is Ken with long hair, funky clothes and some hair in need of a trim. Why does Asian Ken got to have this sort of un-specified Asianism? Shade of his skin and non-Asian features aside, why does he wear such a modernized "Asian" outfit? Is there something wrong with dressing him in a traditional samurai attire? Or does it even have to be Japanese? Why not Chinese? Why not a Korean Ken doll? 
     Is a doll like this only marketable if it is recognizable as a Caucasian face? Is it more approachable than a more Asian-looking Ken doll, clothes aside? Are authentic clothes so irrelevant and dated that the only way to really sell something that looks even remotely "exotic" and unrecognizable is to make it more... dare I say it, white? Did Mattel even hire a cultural consultant with the design of this new Ken doll? 
     Above all, why can't Asian Ken doll be a contemporary Asian male? Why can't he be Barbie's boyfriend who just happens to be Asian? 
     I suppose it's better than having a doll of Charlie Chan or Fu Manchu. 

I Will Not "Ruv You Rong Time."

     Recently somebody suggested I change the name of the blog to be I Will Not Ruv You Rong Time.
Clever, innit? But I began worrying about the more negative connotations that would have. I mean, a blog that's studying and trying to break down the racism that has shaped Asian-American perspective (in the most general sense) that has a title that has... a funky title... like I Will Not Ruv You Rong Time...
     Perhaps I'm overthinking it. Is it okay for the title to be self-mocking and potentially problematic? Does the substitution of the "r" for the "l" make my blog seem racist or clever and witty? What's in a name?
     That's my problem with the Internet and writing. Sarcasm is really hard to pick out. Really, it is. So I wonder, who would be able to find the potential new title as funny and witty and who would find it offensive?
     
The question remains. Should I or should I not change the name?
    
     
     
  

Juniper Lee vs. Jake Long

Who would win in an epic throwdown between two pre-teen Chinese-American cartoon characters? Disney-bred Jake Long? Or Cartoon Network offspring Juniper Lee? 

Let's make a list about the merits of each of our... heroes?

Jake Long can shapeshift into a dragon! Whoa! Not only that, he's the American Dragon! And he protects the other magical creatures in Manhattan. But, while he can kick evil-dude butt, Mr. Long (yes, yes, long is Chinese for dragon, we know) can't seem to ask the gal of his dreams out, Rose. And he skateboards. Dude. He's also got a grandpa who is the Dragon Master. Ohmahgawd. And a Shar-Pei sidekick named Fu Dog.

Jake is voiced by actor Dante Basco, who also did the voice of Prince Zuko in Avatar: The Last Airbender (the television show). Grandpa, voiced by Keone Young, spews Confucian-esque proverbs and dresses in... your stereotypical "Chinese" robe. Fu Dog, voiced by John DiMaggio, is 600 years old. And he's cuddly, as the above picture shows.

Juniper Lee can't shapeshift, but she fights monsters with the help of her grandmother in the fictional town of Orchid Bay City (loosely based on San Francisco). Juniper is the Te Xuan Ze, which means she balances stuff... in the mortal and spirit worlds... She protects the world from eeeeeeevil, but gets all nervous and whatnot when she's around her crush, Marcus. And she plays guitar. She's got a pug dog named Monroe as well.

Grandma (Ah-Ma in the series - Ohmahgawdyay) is voiced by Amy Hill, while Juniper is voiced by Lara Jill Miller. Cute. 

They both have colorful hair... and squishy-looking dogs. And by squishy-looking I mean cuddly-fuzzy-huggable. They both have magic powers. They both have grandparents who spew Confucian-esque proverbs. 

And they have both been canceled. WHY? Yes, they were both campy and had painful painful theme songs, but... how many kiddo TV shows have you seen with kickass ASIAN-AMERICAN preteens with magic powers and squishy dogs and and and...

Note: Both of these characters are Chinese-American. Can we get some recognition for the other "types" of Asian out there? I want to see these kinds of shows plus some about superheroes in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India for the love o' Peter Bjorn and John. I do not wanna see some pan-Asian kinda shindig that lumps us all together in an unkindly fashion...

But who would win in that epic throwdown, you ask? Well, any show that's got this as their logo...

Come on, really?? REALLY? I guess it's kinda cool... but... It's a freaking gong. With a dragon... kid... martial arts... faux-Asian font... Just... No. No.

As opposed to this:

So I think Juniper won the logo contest...

LIST: Observations and Inquiries

1. What is it with all these martial-arts themed things that there's always a Mr. Miyagi type mentor person? And they're usually elderly and they excrete wisdom out their very pores... 

2. Both Jake and Juniper's feetsies are huge.

3. Can't get over... the dyed hair... 

4. Why dyed hair? Why funky-colored-dyed hair?

5. Theme songs for all kiddo shows are embarrassing. Particularly these two. Especially Jake's theme song. It's got gong noises and the zither noises and it just sounds so... stereotyped and gross and obnoxious. At least Juniper's hasn't got any of that. It's just downright annoying. 

6. Magic Powers... 

7. Matching initials!!!! JL vs. JL

8. So... in order to have a "successful, appealing" kiddo TV show with Asian American main characters, you gotta put martial arts, magic powers, mythical creatures, and proverby elders all together? Sounds... stereotyped? Must it have magic and ancient arts and traditions? Apparently.

In the badass throwdown, Avatar: The Last Airbender would win. Nickelodeon triumphs in this case.

Cuteness throwdown? Sagwa. (Future blog post in the works)

But between Jake and Juniper? 

Your call.