Trackbacks & Pings

1. I protest. Wait - can I do that? at Anti-Racist Parent - for parents committed to raising children with an anti-racist outlook on 20 Aug 2008 at 5:25 am

   […] Asian Man. ARP’s own Carmen Van Kerckhove was interviewed on CNN about the incident, too - you can watch here. My reaction was pretty strong, as I’m sure yours were, too. A commenter to my post got me […]

Comments

1. KadiBaby wrote:

   I was so excited to see Carmen on CNN today! It was my first time seeing you and you broke the facts down neatly and plainly! Thank You!!

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 6:16 pm ¶

2. soreal879 wrote:

   i was watching CNN too when you came on Carmen, and I told my mom to be quiet so I could hear you address the issue!

   you’re da bomb, girl!

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 7:26 pm ¶

3. Leonarde Busby wrote:

   This is a defining moment in the history of the world. It’s time for a genuine on going empirical examination, and discussion on the topic of race and racism nationally and internationally. Thank you for keeping this topic alive.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:20 pm ¶

4. Phil Deeze wrote:

   Carmen,
   Another blog is reporting the Spanish tennis team made the same gestures that the basketball team did.
   Now, some folks may not like the messenger about the double standard the NBA appears to be dealing with (Jason Kidd spoke out), but the man has a point. If someone from Team USA passes gas at the wrong time, it’s an international incident AND he’d be made to apologize and probably pay a fine. Maybe even serve a suspension back in the NBA.
   Spain has a couple of players on its national team in the NBA. Is Mr. Stern going to have a Johnny Sac/Tony Soprano sit-down with them? If Iverson has to sit in his office when he gets a new tatt, I say that Pau Gasol’s got some ’splainin’ to do.

   “Like they always say: ‘What’s good for the goose, is always good for the gander.’ Oh, Sheila.”

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:22 pm ¶

5. Animelee/Andrew wrote:

   Damn, CNN?! I remember when this was a little blog known as Mixed Media Watch and we were all making fun of that lame reality show, Black.White., in the comments.

   *Sniff* You’ve hit the big leagues now, kid! You’re going to be a star!

   Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 4:51 am ¶

6. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   Thanks everyone! And Animelee/Andrew, CNN or no, making fun of crappy reality shows and salivating over Keanu will always be a mainstay of this blog. I’m a big believer in not taking yourself too seriously.

   Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 8:36 am ¶

7. Brigitte wrote:

   Drat I missed it? Anyone got a Youtube link?

   Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶

8. Liza wrote:

   Okay, how awesome is it that I logged on to Racialicious, had my daughter on my lap, clicked on the YouTube clip and my 5-year old said, “Look! It’s Carmen!” …. aw yea! Way to go, Carmen! Nice to see your increasing presence in visual media, too. As we all know, it’s so important to be able to be seen on visual media, like television, and voice our opinions (and facts).

   Way to go!

   Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 4:04 pm ¶

9. Arturo wrote:

   Is it me, or did the anchor not have any idea on how to say the word “Racialicious”?

   Anyway, glad you got the whole stage to yourself on this one, Carmen

   Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 6:06 pm ¶

10. Whitney wrote:

    *applause*

    Awesome job, Carmen. I think you hit the nail on the head.

    Posted 16 Aug 2008 at 1:03 am ¶

11. Dolly wrote:

    Wow! Congratulations Carmen! It was so cool to see you on CNN. You did a terrific job.

    Posted 16 Aug 2008 at 9:15 pm ¶

12. merq wrote:

    Animelee/Andrew wrote:

    Damn, CNN?! I remember when this was a little blog known as Mixed Media Watch and we were all making fun of that lame reality show, Black.White., in the comments.

    Or enduring 600+ comments on the looks and ethnic identity of the singer Amerie. Oh, those were the days…

    Great to see you out there, Carmen. It’s a rare occurrence for me to feel completely trusting and at ease when a news channel calls in an “expert” to discuss racial issues.

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 5:09 pm ¶

13. Natasha wrote:

    Well done Carmen! I was so excited to see this, it’s always great to put a face to an online voice. You do an incredible job of breaking down with the issue(s) without seeming reactionary. That’s why I love this place. Sigh.

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 10:46 pm ¶

14. Alden E. Habacon wrote:

    KUDOS on this great opportunity to take your work and perspective to the broadest scope of American (and Canadian) audiences possible. I’m sure it wasn’t your intent to represent all Asian Canadians/Americans for the world, but you did it eloquently! I’m glad it was you they asked to respond. This didn’t happen overnight, so big KUDOS on the years of work to get on the CNN rolodex!

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶

15. Candi wrote:

    I really think that there is not enough time given on the air waves to seriously talk honestly about race issues. This was a good start, but these networks don’t REALLY want to give too much time for the HONESTY that is needed.

    Great Carmen! Keep up the good work.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 4:05 pm ¶

16. Margie wrote:

    Carmen, you rock! Many thanks for delivering this message so clearly.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 4:41 pm ¶

17. Arlene wrote:

    Gracias Carmen, we need to speak from our heart and experience. I appreciate what you do. How would you equip institutional leadership with the skills to internalize and implement changes?

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:36 pm ¶

18. Donna wrote:

    You handled yourself with authority and grace. I think in the future you will get more and more exposure for this important issue. I was a bit disappointed that CNN kept showing the pictures larger then you and the host. Over and over again flashing one and then the other. A better choice would have been to show it once, then have it be the smaller image in the screen. Enough already, we saw it. That would make it show the issue is more important than the sensationalism. I really hate American TV.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 5:41 am ¶

19. queenofsheba wrote:

    One tiny, tiny quibble: I don’t think the problem is that we’re not talking enough about race–I think the problem is that most of the time, we’re not talking WELL enough about race. But it is a deeply satisfying thing to see that remedied, even if it’s only for a minute, by Carmen on CNN.

    And one totally random question, Carmen–did the anchor lady pronounce your last name right (VANkerkove), or at least right for a non-Dutch speaker? I’d've put the stress later (vanKERkove), but I dunno how you’ve adapted your beautifully Dutch last name to English.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 10:02 am ¶

20. Cyrus wrote:

    @19. queenofsheba - here’s to making an attempt at talking a little more clearly about race.

    How To tell an SNA Thinker from a DNA Thinker

    “Race” is a subjective sociocultural concept, not an objective scientific concept;
    “Race’ is a sociocultural construct, not a scientific construct;
    “Race” is a sociocultural fact, not a 21st century scientific fact;
    “Race” exists as a product of SNA (sociocultural networks and associations) and sociocultural thinking;
    “Race” does not exist as ANY thinking or supporting fact(s) of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or scientific thinking;
    “Race” means ” ‘us’ not ‘them’ ” in SNA terms;
    “Race” has no meaning or facts in DNA terms;
    In DNA terms, modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are a single species with at most ~5% variation;
    In SNA terms, modern humans are more “races” than you can find features - genetic and cultural - to shake a leg at - or ever differentiate within the genetic DNA human species.

    “Socioculturally real” i.e. SNA, doesn’t mean you can’t see or experience a difference in peoples. It does mean that any such differences have no scientific basis (in DNA) for categorizing humans as different species or sub-species of humans, or in fact as any kind of “race”. Differences between individual humans (DNA/fingerprints), and groups of humans (DNA/blood types) exist - genetically (DNA/biology) and also, like language, socioculturally (SNA) - but there are no differences - none - that taken either individually, or together, lead to the scientific determination of a different human species, or sub-species, or any kind of biologically distinguished set of humans at the species level; “Race” remains socioculturally defined, and a sociocultural reality;
    “Race” remains scientifically undefined, and a scientific illusion.

    Example observation (using SNA sociocultural terms): In the U.S. the educational (and IQ) gap between recent African immigrants to the U.S. and the resident white population is as big (in the immigrants favor) as is the gap between the resident white population and U.S.-born African-Americans (black) is in the white residents’ favor. Are these SNA-based differences or DNA-based differences? And can any DNA differences which are identified be cause-effect related to the population genetic feature (biology) of skin-color? Eye color? nose width? Way of walking? Way of talking? School experience?

    You can see the problem of using DNA thinking when in fact SNA forces are at work - as the SNA-for-DNA thinkers will go through intellectual hoops to figure out what possible exceptions can be applied to the African immigrants to “explain” why they outperform the white population (the usual but not only SNA-for-DNA thinkers population).

    “Racism” is about mistaking SNA for DNA and treating SNA as a scientific concept;
    “Racist” is about justifying sociocultural, sociopolitical, and economic behaviour on DNA, not SNA terms;
    “Racism” is an indicator of not knowing the difference between DNA and SNA;
    “Racism” is often an indicator of being stone-scared of becoming aware of and acknowledging the difference between SNA and DNA;
    “Racism” is an indicator of not wanting to unlearn and relearn 21st century scientific facts;
    Most Americans don’t know these facts consciously;
    Most Americans don’t want to know these facts consciously;
    Most Americans and their institutions cling to and find reassurance for their own thinking and behaviour in ‘DNA begats SNA, and since DNA is scientific, so is SNA’, type mis-thinking;
    Almost all Americans believe “Race” (SNA) is as scientifically objective as “Race” (DNA) is not.

    So what does it mean when people ‘look’ different from me?

    “Blue-eyes” or “brown skin” are a genetic, that is, a DNA characteristic.
    “Blue-eyes” or ” ‘black’-skin” can be a sociocultural fact, that is, an SNA characteristic.
    “Blue-eyes” and “brown-skin” are population genetic features.
    “Blue-eyes and “brown skin” can be a sociocultural ‘racial’ feature.

    You can see where confusion might arise.

    When “blue-eyes” and ” ‘brown’-skin” have kids, that is population DNA characteristics combining (population genetics);
    When “blue-eyes” and ” ‘black’-skin” have kids that is SNA “racial” features combining (SNA “biracial”);
    One of these descriptions of the offspring is scientifically real (DNA: population genetics); the other is only socioculturally real (SNA - “biracial”) and the term itself that is used - “biracial” - is as scientifically meaningful as saying when a green-eyed person and a blue-eyed person have a kid you have a “biracial” child. Now I bet that looks more stupid when plainly spelled out like that than when not;
    Most SNA thinking folks will argue that SNA thinking is scientific - and point to IQ tests and the like (and argue that African, Asian, Indian immigrants? can be explained away. “The Asians are smarter, it’s their DNA and their culture; the Indians are smarter; it’s their DNA and they have an ancient past of achievement; and the Africans are, well, how good is that data anyway?”).

    “Racism” is arguing, acting, thinking, believing, etc that the socioculturally real is scientifically real.

    Here’s the tough news:

    At the DNA level (biology), all modern humans are one, that is, a single species - with tons of individual variations within that species.
    At the DNA level (population genetics) all modern humans are Africans (from geographical origins c. 60-70,000 years ago), with variations.

    At the SNA level Americans already know (and generally willfully ignore) the effect of environment, stimulation, nutrition, culture, education, racism (SNA), criminal justice system dynamics (e.g. ‘crack vs cocaine’), socioeconomic opportunity, political representation, history, et al on the outcomes of sociocultural expressions, performance, finances (as well as financing), and so on - THAT AFFECT what they SNA-think of “race”.

    Taking SNA thinking for DNA realities, and DNA realities as, somehow, explanation for SNA realities, in the form of “race”, is illusory and twisted thinking that keeps America as one of the most (SNA) ‘racist’ countries on the planet - there ARE others - as well as retarded and far from its greatness.

    Since most folks don’t distinguish in their own minds between SNA (sociocultural) facts and DNA (population genetics) facts, they tend to think SNA statements and arguments are supported by, confusingly, similarly named DNA facts. That’s why I think facts like the African immigrant statistics are so delicious - is it, as MUST(!) be obvious to SNA-oriented thinkers, a case of superior-to-them African immigrant DNA? Or does it push them to wake-up, if just a little, and (a) distinguish between such a scientifically unsupported conclusion, and (b), Much further down the road from this posting - begin to explore the complex and very dynamic interaction of SNA and DNA realities in every human population? Right.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶

21. Hokayshenao wrote:

    I believe you when you say that racial gestures are derrogatory. Your comment was very helpful, because I find it difficult to articulate comments about race myself.

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶

22. Derek wrote:

    Carmen looks great! the hair looked perfect for a minute and then…anyway, love to see u more on tv!haha

    Posted 01 Sep 2008 at 4:19 am ¶

Post a Comment