Trackbacks & Pings

1. Addicted to Race 57: Is Barack Obama really black? at Anti-Racist Parent - for parents committed to raising children with an anti-racist outlook on 29 Jan 2007 at 3:12 pm

   [...] As expected, we got a ton of feedback in response to our discussion in episode 56 about Asian outmarriage, so listener feedback runs a little long today. To read all the comments to this episode, see here and here. After that, Mat and Carmen discuss two recent articles on Salon.com that question whether or not Obama is “really” black: Colorblind by Debra Dickerson and Black vs. “black” by Gary Kamiya. [...]

Comments

1. Kai wrote:

   Carmen and Jenn, nice job on the podcast, you brought up many excellent points. Being an activist and entrepreneur and not an academic, I really haven’t thought much about the “problem” of outmarriage before, but I can see why it’s a charged issue because it touches quite a few axes of personal pain. I definitely agree with the feminist perspective that Jenn was articulating, regarding the marginality of dating choices in racial identity: obviously your political views can’t possibly be discredited by the race of whoever you’re sleeping with. Yet I think Jenn conflated the sexism of Asian men with the racist formation of sexual desire in a white supremacist culture, a visceral reality which neither of you mentioned and which likely haunts the sexist Asian men who lash out at Jenn with irrational criticism. I also think that Jenn overly downplayed the degree to which the dating choices of Black men affect their social image. Denzel Washington leaps to mind: if he were married to a white woman, he simply wouldn’t have any legitimacy in the eyes of Black women, period; he has refused to even appear in any romantic scene with any white woman throughout his career, and this decision is widely applauded in the African American community. So it might be a bit more complex than Jenn suggests.

   Anyway, great job, as always. Peace.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 2:01 pm ¶

2. Kai wrote:

   Correction: I should say that Denzel Washington has refused to appear in sex scenes with a white woman, rather than “romantic” scenes, which is too broad a term for what I’m talking about. Cheers.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶

3. mr guy wrote:

   Man, sometimes this whole racial politics with dating or race just in general is just too much.People make it seem like you’re out of touch with your community at best, or a traitor to your race at worst if you don’t stick to your own, or say the right things about race. Gets annoying after a while lol.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 5:01 pm ¶

4. mr guy wrote:

   Oh yeah.Keep in mind I’m not talking about anyone in particular here, or the guy above me.I’m just talking in general.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 5:36 pm ¶

5. ren wrote:

   I’m almost too scared to respond. Someone needs to teach me how to give the happy face emoticon so I can embed it everywhere. I’ll do my best to be civil and not shock you with any unwarranted male dynamic. Nothing like hearing the Asian male point of view being presented by the most absurd responses you get on bulletin boards, at the very minimum that could have used a male-centric voice… nevertheless an interesting podcast. Personally I don’t self-identify with any ideology so I guess I’ll come off sounding like the ravings of an anti-social lunatic. I have been in an interracial relationship (to which I was a bit surprised by level of vitriol from non-possessive Asian women) but at the moment I’m dating an Asian.

   I liked C.N.Lee’s way of stating it, that despite the race your partner, it doesn’t preclude that you as an Asian American M/F have a strong Asian American identity. However you ended up rewording it, by saying “the race of your partner doesn’t speak volumes about your political outlook”, expecting the same conclusion to apply, however that statement is a bit weaker.

   Frankly I don’t believe anyone’s opinions on race and your racial identity are so absolutist that despite intimately connecting with someone of a different racial background has zero affect on your worldview. I consider myself a petulant hardass and with my ex (who was white) I certainly adopted some of her opinions. I was not less inclined to speak about whites but certainly more conscious of the words that I used and in particular how I framed it. When supposed “white” issues came up I was less inclined to be overly critical nor so eager to jump on an issue where it was Asians vs. White. I agree with you for the most part, fundamentally you aren’t going to make a 180 reversal and drop Kochiyama for Barbara Streisand.

   But things do change, at least for me and how I consciously weighed issues. I’m not saying that’s bad, it could be good I make no claim of moral distinction. Perhaps that moment to empathize the positions that someone of a different racial background might hold, to sympathize will only increase your understanding of an issue and make you wiser.
   But to suggest it has no connection… that the issues you have about race as a single Asian and the ideas you have when you’re in a intermarried couple remain absolutely the same. I’d disagree a bit, not fundamentally but a bit.

   It’s nice that Mr. Lee’s students are so open to interracial relationships. However exhibiting a willingness to engage in an interracial relationship doesn’t preclude that you can actually participate in one. You can be sitting in your room satisfied with the knowledge that you could open the door and walk out whenever you wanted and by your free will yet chose to stay in, however unbeknownst to you the door might be padlocked from the outside. You’re will to believe that interracial relationships are equally accessible to anyone who is open-minded enough is false, there are factors that bar you, whereas others may be equally open-minded and find it far easier to be the beneficiaries.

   As an Asian I’m not unfamiliar with the out-marriage debate. Many times I hear the accusation lodged at Asian Males of their attempt to dictate how an Asian female’s personal life should be like. Yet considering the 100 plus years of emasculation of Asian males, unfair laws, the massive piles of pulps, films, videos, books that depict Asian women as a white man’s property etc… not once have I heard an interracial supporting Asian woman say “I hate how these white men are trying to dictate how my life should be.” Despite the fact that the prior is supplemented by proof and the speculation that THAT particular Asian man against interracial relationships wants to dominate you stems from your opinion.

   Something else I never hear when I listen to Asian Americans squabble over out-marriage, is how self-important it is. Everyone is concerned about how it affects them but no one ever considers the newly “Americanized” Asians that occur between foreign Asians and American citizens. I knew one. She came to a country that was completely foreign, the area she lived was sure as hell no ethnic enclave, she struggled to speak English while her husband (in a loving show of compromise) never bothered to learn the minimum of her language. But I’m sure that out-marriage situation comprised of no compromise to her culture. I found the whole thing terribly depressing that I couldn’t even feel that stinging loss of my Asian masculinity.

   I’m a bit surprised that you find it shocking the “instinctive conclusion” that people use to characterize out-marriages as White/Asian? I don’t consider that instinctual, that would suggest an innate impulse with no basis in rational calculation. Considering the Census states out-marriage of Asians (both male and female) at 80% to whites, that’s hardly an uneducated guess. If those were gambling odds I’d be taking the house in Vegas. So someone who “instinctively characterizes” an out-marriage to a white, the probability of being right is pretty good. Now if you want to say, this individuals a bonehead because they rely on conjecture instead of just politely asking… then yes, they are a bonehead.

   About your ethical concerns over Dr. Chang’s findings. When you bought a coffee today did you wonder how that coffee affected those that don’t work under a fair trade agreement? Or the shoes you wear, did you consider who made them and what the conditions must be like for those individuals? That’s probably not how you think on a daily basis and I doubt scientists think that way either. The infinite chain that stems from the actions I make and the consequences I disregard could cause one to quibble motionless for the duration of their lives. How many degrees of separation before your ethical responsibility diminishes? I’m with Dr. Chang, I don’t really see the circular argument nor the harm he’s causing.

   You’re afraid of the ramifications of his findings. That’s the funny thing about white supremacy, it’s mind-blowing idiocy. Chen’s findings aren’t going to reinforce the core convictions of white supremacists because they function on ideology, not science. Ideology needs no measurable proof apart from one’s personal conviction. White supremacists still hold up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as being true, when it has been discredited time and time again. None of the “scientific” rationale that Nazi’s gave for their racial doctrine were scientifically legitimate. They don’t care period. So why do you think they’re looking for a scientific rational? Like somehow all of a sudden they are worried about legitimacy.

   I don’t see how hate groups are wringing their hands in joy over this finding, a genetic strain that dictates skin color, it’s a bit benign. What they would prefer is a scientific basis that supports a notion of white superiority or non-white inferiority. But even that isn’t necessary, because they “feel” superior and for them that proves it. A small verbal disclaimer saying this is not a component for white supremacy isn’t going to sway someone who wants to see it that way, nor is that keeping a rational individual from saying hey, if he hadn’t made that disclaimer I would have shed my tolerance and become a full blown skinhead. The issue of how this finding impacts as a racial issue is really a non-issue.

   While I agree that science shouldn’t reside in a bubble, which it so often does, it also isn’t dictated by the hypothetical. Edison wasn’t worried that someday in 2008 someone would use electricity to turn a light on so they could read the firing instructions for a nuclear weapon. Damn that Edison, he should have left it well enough alone. My favorite feminist Andrea Dworkin made a similar argument on the censorship of pornography. That allowing it to exist for people to read would produce hostility toward women, thus pornography promoted violent physical harm. This was thankfully shot down by the courts and from what I infer, a porn-loving judge, due to the idea that you cannot censor work in the hopes that it accomplishes a societal good, in a potential reality, of a probable world. Without actual empirical evidence to prove it, your concern lies in the realm of unwarranted assertion. Now, if morally that is how you want to function you certainly may. But the law doesn’t work that way and neither does science. You can’t just consciously ignore areas of science or censor one’s findings simply out of fear of a possible state of the world.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 6:15 pm ¶

6. Sewere wrote:

   Kai,

   Could you explain this a bit more

   Yet I think Jenn conflated the sexism of Asian men with the racist formation of sexual desire in a white supremacist culture, a visceral reality which neither of you mentioned and which likely haunts the sexist Asian men who lash out at Jenn with irrational criticism.

   Because I seem to be reading this as a confusion of two things i.e. sexism of Asian men directed against Asian women operating in a similar fashion as white supremacy racialiazation of Asian women. From what I’ve read from Jenn, it seems she’s saying that both operate in similar fashions of ownership. Also, from the exchanges I’ve seen it seems that rather than address the white supremacy racialization, too many Asian men attack ALL Asian women who are in interracial relationships of being complicit in their own sexist racialization.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 8:10 pm ¶

7. Jenn wrote:

   Kai,

   I agree with you that I may have overly downplayed the experiences of Black men in interracial relationships. It was actually not my intention to hiearchize the two experiences, but merely to point out that there was a difference that doesn’t warrant absolute comparison and that one must remember the sexual power dynamics that differ between the two groups, however, upon re-listening to what I had to say, it definitely sounds like I was saying that Black men do not suffer nearly as much as Asian American women when it comes to issues of outmarriage. I don’t believe that issues of oppression can really be compared or ranked between differing identities and groups, so that wasn’t my intention. For that, I apologize. I certainly agree that the issue is probably more complex than I describe since I note that I am neither a Black man nor am I a Black man involved in an IR relationship.

   On the issues of sexual desire in a racist culture, I’m not sure what you had hoped to hear — as an APIA woman who ends up being irrationally criticized by these men, should I put aside my anger or outrage because of the existence of an overarching racist culture that encourages colourstruck constructions of lust? Frankly, I’m not particularly interested in excusing (in any sense) the mistreatment of APIA women; and to acknowledge the influence of the White supremacist culture almost sounds like it is trying to remove the blame from the APIA men who use the effects of this culture to disrespect APIA women.

   To ren,

   First of all, that was a looooong post. Since I’m suffering from limited time, I’d like to address the race/genetics issue first (since it’s most recent on my mind).

   I don’t believe that this is an issue that affects only White supremacists; certainly White supremacists will be unswayed by scientific findings that support or contradict their beliefs. My concern is the effect that such research has on the general population, who live in a White supremacist culture that consider race relations on only the most basic of levels. Science has largely put out this opinion that race doesn’t exist on a genetic level, and that there is no biological basis for race. Which is true.

   Suddenly, research emerges that suggests that there is a genetic basis for race, and that this genetic variation occurs throughout the body in a number of tissues. The layperson could easily interpret a genetic variation that is expressed in the brain (as Dr. Cheng’s “race gene” is) as reason to suspect that perhaps non-Whites are biologically predisposed to more or less intelligence.

   My argument is not that the genetic work shouldn’t be done — obviously, for the sake of scientific curiousity it should. However, I worry that such research clouds the issue, especially when geneticists are faced with questions of race politics. I think every American can and should consider the ramifications of what they do; to conflate what coffee I drink with my life’s work are two wholly different things. While most might not think about their source of coffee beans or their sneakers (I actually do on both counts, so poor example), each of us should be considering our impact when it comes to our jobs and passions.

   For scientists, we are our research, and we are encouraged to consider our research from every angle. Part of our job description involves communicating our research to the public, and yet we receive no training on that level. I see that as a terribly important issue — we are turning to scientsts to give us an answer on race that directly contradicts the established dogma when these geneticists are grossly unprepared to consider or present their work on a political level.

   I failed to mention in the show that Dr. Cheng’s talk included a number of racialized language that was akin to race jokes during his seminar. He talked about being Black as having a permanent suntan, and made a comment about being Chinese that I found offensive. He did not even realize that he could have been offensive in his talk until he was later confronted by my companion to the lecture in the question and answer period, and then proceeded to ask my (Black) friend what the best way would be to present his work at an HBCU.

   To bottle the answer, I did not in the podcast advocate an end to genetic research into the differences of race. I am glad that we are doing that research — I simply fail to see how such research can end racism if the people presenting it are unable to discuss racism on more than a cursory level.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 8:25 pm ¶

8. kim wrote:

   I haven’t read this thread, and I apologize. But two things:

   Ren: There are oversensitive responders here, and what sometimes happens is that the mob mentality of ‘jump on what that last responder had to say,’ without digesting the meat of the first comment, derails, unravels, and places someone’s head in the middle of the town for stoning.

   Since I’ve noticed you here, that head has been yours. I don’t think you need emoticons, so much as a willingness sometimes to walk away from the fight, because if someone does not want to hear you, they won’t.

   (This after a long one I had at Winterbreak – I live on school schedules – with a pitbull).

   Secondly, and pertaining to the strain of talk about Denzel. Let it be said, I like his work, but no one is even bothering to check on whether he said what is being attibuted to him, and whether this is a new spin on an old tale that was not there before:

   GQ Magazine, December/January 2000, pg. 129, of an article entitled, “Black Man in a White World,”:

   Denzel:
   I remember when my agent called me and said, “Hey, Julia Roberts wants you to do The Pelican Brief.” [Laughs] That was a no-brainer. Alan Pakula directing, big John Grisham book, Julia Roberts – when do we start?

   GQ:
   How do you think audiences would have reacted if you and Julia Roberts had ended up in bed in that movie?

   Denzel:

   You know, people talk about that. But when I got the script, that wasn’t in it. It wasn’t right for the story. The girl’s boyfriend had died like three days before.

   GQ:
   Okay. In general, how would people react to a black man and a white woman in bed on-screen?

   Denzel:
   I don’t know how people would react. I don’t care. I wouldn’t do it just for the reaction. If it’s a good story, I’d do it. I’ll put it to you this way. I haven’t turned down any scenes like that because I haven’t been offered any. So again, that a question for some guys [waves his arm toward the Hollywood Hills] behind those big gates.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 9:51 pm ¶

9. mr guy wrote:

   So that’s what he really said kim?If that’s the case, I wonder where did this whole story of denzel turning down roles with white women (particularly involving sex in some way) as a form or racial solidarity come from?Maybe people were hoping that was the case, I don’t know.

   Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 10:48 pm ¶

10. kim wrote:

    I don’t know either where it came from either, and lately my schedule has picked up so that I can barely get to the computer.

    I loved the article on the whole, because Denzel seemed so comfortable with himself, and his “stature” (very humble positioning he claims to have among the ‘biggies’), and the strength of his ability to “stretch” where roles have called for it.

    I’m not trying to knock any inclination for him to declare a political bent to his career roles, just thought it odd that this is being so…I don’t know…accepted and heralded.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 1:03 am ¶

11. Kai wrote:

    Jenn, honestly I haven’t had time yet to closely read this thread but just wanted to thank you for the podcast in the first place and comments here. I really didn’t take issue with anything that was said either, was not hoping to hear anything, I just thought I’d throw out a comment with some (possibly erroneous) responses to what I’d just heard…sorry if it seemed like I had any serious disagreements. I’ll try to write more shortly! Cheers.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 1:08 am ¶

12. ren wrote:

    Kim,

    My response was to the podcast only, not to a previous comment, I shamefully admit I didn’t read Kai’s comment, so don’t think I’m lodging criticism there. Secondly, I like getting stones thrown at me, it’s fun to see who the new Pharisees are (big yellow grinning smiley face *I kid*).

    Jenn,

    “Science has largely put out this opinion that race doesn’t exist on a genetic level, and that there is no biological basis for race. Which is true.”

    I think I’m seeing the gist of the issue here. By science I assume you mean Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s holy text, The History and Geography of Human Genes. From where, the idea that race is biologically meaningless. The problem is you state that it’s true, while at the same time admitting that it’s science’s opinion. I think it’s valid because it hasn’t been thoroughly disproved, but what I pull from your dislike is the idea of science, doing it’s job, attacking that which it has previously held to be scientifically legitimate. I say this because you make the comment that scientists like Cheng are giving “answers” that directly contradict the established dogma. But it’s not dogma, it’s a theory. How Cavalli-Sforza’s research leapfrogged over Darwin’s theory of evolution to become undisputed and authoritative ideology… leaves me curious. You don’t like anyone attacking the theory that race is meaningless, fine, but that doesn’t bode well for scientific curiosity.

    For the layperson the cursory presentation is probably what’s necessary. I used to find it amusing at philosophy symposiums, the ideas they found earth shattering were confined within the perimeter of their very limited reach. Bill my trashman couldn’t care less that Wittgenstein disagreed with Gottlob Frege. What real influence does it have apart from those who study and pore over it? I consider the people on this site the most aware of racial issues, yet how many have read the eight pound Cavalli-Sforza’s book (unabridged for the masochistic)? Meticulous information is out there, no one’s looking for it. Cavalli-Sforza’s book was a heralded a milestone in the mid 90’s, yet who outside of the sciences really know of it? Apart from the scientists I doubt any layperson’s lives were radically changed. Yet you think a layperson with no creditability is going to suddenly interpret that Cheng’s findings confer intelligence, and that somehow his opinion will matter? The layperson is irrational, his reasoning constitutes an illogical cause and they have reasons to suspect whatever they want. There influence is limited, thankfully. Yet science is expected to repudiate every possible hasty generalization that arises from a layperson? How?

    Yes scientists should consider their research from every angle… within their sphere of expertise. I don’t see what the “training on communication” would consist of since they are required to present that which they are an expert of. It’s not the role of a scientist, at a seminar concerning issues in his field, to give explanations on all the varied ideologies that may conflict with his findings. That is what the scientific community is for. Checks and balances that Nazi eugenics never had to confront. It’s not irresponsible for him to talk of only what he knows and understands within his expertise. Now if you want to put a social scientist up there to scrutinize him, fine, but to chastise Cheng for not presenting his work on every plausible racial/political exception… is to chastise a Creationist for not advocating Evolutionary Theory while making his arguments for intelligent design.

    By the way coffee wasn’t the issue, I wasn’t arguing for people to buy fair trade beans. The basis of that questioning, which does apply to your life’s work is how one consciously conforms to their ethical worldview. My apologies for my poor example, your looking out for the world is far greater than mine. Perhaps I should have picked something like C02 emissions of driving or taking public trans, but chances are you probably walk. Nevertheless I poised it simply as something to consider. Where should one’s responsibility end and to what degree does our responsibility contribute? Should each of us consider our impact and what could stem from our direct involvement, absolutely. Should we fear what could result and allow that to dictate our actions, probably not unless the fear is credible.

    No you did not advocate an end to genetic research, nor would it be wise to. Yet, I don’t think the basis of our hatred toward racial others has its roots in genetic or scientific legitimacy. You suggest that by renouncing the genetic call signs of race, will result in racism’s demise. I don’t see how finding biological variation, while interesting, affects one’s personality and worldview. So I fail to see how science and research thinks it can END racism. Not ending racism in the biological sense of bravely changing the textbook definition of race. I’m talking about what Cavalli-Sforza would say, the racial stereotyping perpetuated by superficial surface differences that constitute us as being separate races. Proving that race is biologically meaningless doesn’t mean it’s any less meaningless in the minds of people who wish to see racial distinctions.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 1:49 pm ¶

13. Eric wrote:

    Denzel Washington did eventually have a bedroom scene with a white actress (Milla Jovovich) in the movie He Got Game. I remember there being a small outcry over the matter as well.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 2:15 pm ¶

14. Kai wrote:

    Hello all, well it’s amazing what a good night of sleep can do…and I just want to say, I’d frankly like to retract my earlier comments, which now appear to me to be poorly expressed and dealing with nitpicky matters of emphasis and inflection more than anything substantive, so I don’t want it to distract from the main points that are being made here and which are more worthy of discussion. Plus, the whole Denzel story is apparently in question according to passages excerpted here! So I don’t know what to think, but I do know that I don’t want to argue about something I’m no longer sure about. Thanks for all the informative comments! Peace.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 4:48 pm ¶

15. Sam wrote:

    The reaction may seem “irrational” to some, but it’s not without reason.

    Growing up as an Asian American male is tough. When just about everything in the media tries to emasculate AMs, when you constantly here women say they AMs are wimpy, and when there such a strong social stigma to being Asian and Male, it’s tough.

    And it’s even worse when there are Asian women who will outright say they don’t date Asian men because of this-and-that.

    I’m sure there are some crazies out there. I’m sure there are AAMs with “irrational” anger.

    But it’s not without reason.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 7:37 pm ¶

16. Rob wrote:

    This is the main point. They think it comes out of nowhere but there is a reason why there is much anger from Asian men.

    http://www.addictedtorace.com/?p=120#comments

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 5:47 pm ¶

17. Paul wrote:

    With all of this talk about male sexism etc. has it ever occured to anyone here that Asian males who react against interracial marriage would like to be married and have families but find themselves only attracted to Asian females. Men for the most part are not attracted to women bigger than them. Many Asian men are smaller in stature than white women just as many men in general are smaller in stature than black women. Interracial marriage leaves two groups of people without spouses, black women and Asian men. These two groups of people will never marry or get together. It just is not a natural thing. Therefore interracial marriage and its rise will leave these two groups of people childless. I personally don’t trust the attention of women not of my race and I wonder greatly if people marry outside of their race because they haven’t dealt with the issues of their own race and culture. Too many times I have heard women say that they won’t marry a man of their own race. And the reason for this is that they find males of their own race “dominating”. The truth is they don’t want to face the problems of their own race and of themselves.
    Racism has nothing to do with views for or against interracial marriage. Racism is hatred of another race and simply includes giving a cigarette to a person of another race or taking their money or doing anything that will destroy that race and that group of people. I find that most people who are for interracial marriage actually promoting those very things that will destroy race and culture and these people are the true racists.

    Posted 07 Apr 2007 at 10:49 am ¶