waiting for superman, part deux

I forgot to mention, there was one thing that I did like about Waiting for Superman - the portrayal of families of color, in a sense, the de-pathologizing of Black families

The Black and Latino families that are portrayed in the news and pop culture feed off of negative stereotypes of welfare queens, crack addicts and absent fathers. The explanation for poor performance in  Black and Latino children usually begins with their families not valuing education. This is so silly since education is so popularly and universally valued. No, Asians and Jewish people do not value education more than any one else. It is not an explanation as to why they do well in school. Nor is it an explanation as to why other students fail.

The families in the film all cared deeply about their children's education, making large sacrifices in order to finance and support their child's learning through additional tutoring or by sending them to private school.

Some reviews have faulted the film with having only shown parents invested in their child's education - which seems problematic to say the least. Instead, the documentary excels in its provision of a counternarrative to the idea of pathological Black families and a culture of poverty.

waiting for (race)

Today, I finally got a chance to see "Waiting for Superman" -- a new documentary that is supposed to highlight the pitfalls of our education system. I had heard negative reviews from my friends who are schoolteachers, but still wanted to see for myself.

One would think that a movie about the problems with education (and a movie that at times historicizes concepts) would mention officially sanctioned racial segregation (then desegregation and then de facto segregation spurred by current policies and court judgments!) and race. Race is not used once. Not one time.

The documentary features five children: a hispanic girl from Los Angeles, a black girl from New York, a hispanic boy from New York, a black boy from D.C. and a white (older) girl from Silicon Valley. (Which thing is not like the other?) All the children expect the white child live in urban poor districts and attending failing schools. The white girl lives in a neighborhood where the average home price is just below 1m and attends a stunningly beautiful all-white school. She wishes to attend a charter school because her test scores are lower than she would like. The narrator mentions how "middle-class" kids suffer too because a small minority of over-performing children make the school averages look better when many of the kids are not where they should be. And, while it is important to realize that America's education problem is far reaching and across the board, it isn't the same across the board. To compare in a way that suggests symmetry between the white wealthy girl and the poor black and brown children is apalling. And, to not mention how race plays a factor in all of this is nothing short of shameful.

All of the children are trying to get into charter schools. The documentary correctly makes the point that if they stay in their failing public schools, most will drop out and all will be grade levels behind where they are supposed to be. Most of them do not win the lottery to get into their preferred charter school. And, the film fails to problematize this.

The documentary also overwhelming points to teachers as the problem, while simultaneously saying that teachers aren't the problem, unions are. Well, folks, what are unions made of? Teachers! The focus on failing teachers, and not failing curriculum, the lack of integration, lack of resources, too short school day, and tracking. 

And in terms of just production, editing, conception, etc. - it doesn't really build much of an argument for anything (well maybe except for the inadequacy of teachers). The long montage of famous, smart people who went to public school? Unnecessary and confusing. The scenes that were cut in of classroom situations from various cartoons, movies, tv shows and 50s instructional videos? Unnecessary and confusing. They brought in a lot of stuff but didn't really delve into it: KIPP schools, Harlem Children's Zone, Michelle Yee, rubber rooms in NYC etc.

All in all, this had the potential of being great in concept, but flatlined in the first few minutes.

indigenous peoples, affirmative action and economic development

a couple months back, i was thinking about reparations - reparations, what a controversial word - and indigenous peoples in america. i asked if we see limited government regulation of indigenous-owned casinos as a sort of reparations, what would it look like if extended to African-Americans? specifically, gambling - formally illegal in most states - could be analogized to marijuana. marijuana though illegal as a recreational drug in the united states is not blanketly illegal globally and is not illegal for medicinal use in some areas of the united states. what would it look like if marijuana was legalized and African-Americans were able to have a monopoly of the sale of it? (and i want to be careful in suggesting marijuana because of the historical correlation between Af-Ams and marijuana/illegal drugs - i simply chose that because it is a vice that could potentially be legalized like alcohol and gambling.)

that was my initial question. after a bit of google-search research, i am shifting the question and annotating my commentary. after reading a semi-angry letter from the national indian gaming association in response an op-ed entitled "indian casinos open way for black reparations" published in the latimes, i want to tread very lightly in an effort not to make my argument clear. bluecorncomics features both the article and responses as a stereotype of the month. what the arthur, dickey, does not do well is explain his argument and in failing to do so, offends native peoples. so, here's for doing a bit better than him.

first of all, i am not arguing that the indian gaming regulatory act was in any sense reparations in the traditional sense. if we see reparations as the making of amends for a wrong that has been done by paying money or otherwise helping those who have been wronged, the regulatory act was certainly not this because it was not framed as part of an apology for genocide, economic depravement, etc. nor does it help all indigenous peoples in the united states - it only helps a select population. additionally, i am not contending that indigenous peoples and african americans are essentially the same. there are some huge differences - the fact that indigenous peoples are sovereign, etc. but, both populations have important similarities: historical policies that were directed towards each group in order to create and preserve racial hierarchy including but not limited to economic depravation, lack of quality education, housing and utilities, and continued lack of true political clout. i hope to provide some food for thought - some theoretical food for thought and i hope that it doesn't stereotype or belittle indigenous populations, but instead, helps us consider the nature of reparations, affirmative actions, economic justice and the legalization of vices.

when both dickey and i think reparations - maybe a more appropriate term would be affirmative action or perhaps a new term not yet popularized or created (incidental positive action policy?). but, for the sake of not being too complicated, let's just call it affirmative action. policy that has been acted that affirmatively helps to level the playing field by giving a historically disadvantaged group increased opportunity for economic and social equality. affirmative action also seems appropriate because some of the objections to the regulatory act uses the same language as objections to affirmative action. An article I found on a Berkeley University site writes how Donald Trump, in an attempt to stop the growth of reservation casinos filed a civil suit alleging the regulatory act unconstitutional and claiming that it gives preferential treatment and an unfair advantage - two (false) arguments often used by people attacking affirmative action policies.

in part, the regulatory act was created in order to assist the indigenous peoples in achieving greater economic development. although, there have been both positive and negative consequences since then, it can't be argued that for some tribes, it has had an incredibly positive economic affect. In The Social and Economic Impact of Native American Casinos,William Evans and Julie Topoleski, they contend that "The casinos have changed the economic climate in and around the reservations. Examining the effects of casinos after at least four years of operation, the authors find that positive changes include: young adults moving back to reservations, fueling an 11.5 percent population increase; adult employment increasing by 26 percent; and a 14 percent decline in the number of working poor. In counties with or near a casino, the employment- to- population ratio has increased and mortality has declined." Additionally, JoAnn Jones, a tribal chair of the Wisconson Winnebago Nation has said, authors

Tribal governments realize that a casino is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve what no state or federal economic development program has been able to achieve for Indian people in 200 years--the return of self-respect and economic self-sufficiency.

so, because of federal policy, indigenous peoples have been able to more easily set up casinos with less overhead than non-indigenous casinos. they have profited and been able to benefit economically from the policy. in many ways, the stated goal of increasing economic development has been achieved. 

so, with that background, could we extend a similar program to african americans? instead of cutting a check (as a one-time 'i'm sorry' that would only affect one or two generations and not in a substantial way), could we enact a policy which allows african-americans to have a larger market share of an in-demand item (possibly tax-free)? if african-americans could corner the market on some other vice (like marijuana) what sort of economic growth would occur? should reparations programs look more like this instead of a one-time payment?

pre-professional networking events or why i wanted to rip my eyes out this weekend

so this weekend, i attended a law school fair in new york. basically, it looks a lot like the above picture - where each law school gets a table and students line up to speak to admission representatives. my purpose in going was to try and get a feel for the schools and see if i felt like i would be a good fit. i knew i had to narrow down where i was going to apply unless i wanted to go broke and live off of ramen next fall. fortunately, the fair helped me narrow this list down.

i have a bunch of interests in going to law school but they all are associated with an interest in race, gender and the law. (surprise, surprise - thus the theme of my blog!) i've learned that simply engaging in discussions of race and gender does not guarantee a good time, and trying to do that in an environment where people really aren't feeling your radicalism is probably a guarantee of a bad time. instead, i am looking for a campus full of professors and students who wish to engage in these topics, in addition to professors who are knowledgeable, critical and interested in this work. having come from an all women's college, i also understand the importance of having female professors. (side note: i'm truly surprised that numbers skew slightly in favor of men, that is, more men are in law school than women) so, my stock questions for the admission reps had to do with whether there was a program, institute or classes devoted to critical race theory; what professors were actively engaging in critical race theory and feminist legal theory; and how many professors of color were at the school.

now that i'm at my second job since graduating from college, i have come to truly appreciate the fact that you need to be interviewing the employer/school as much as they are interviewing you. in other words, i came with the expectation that the reps would try to sell their school to me more than any of my efforts to impress them. having been in a work situation that was not a good fit, i want to be very careful that i don't end up at a school that is not a good fit.

anyways those where my goals, and here are some of my observations:

• for the top 20 schools and the nyc schools, there was usually a 15-20 minute wait time. i should've expected this. what i shouldn't have expected (and didn't expect) was waiting behind a girl while she spent 10 minutes asking questions that included, "should recommendations be single or double spaced?" "do you have a preferred font?" and "what kind of margins do you think look the best?" really? REALLY? the worst part of this show was that the admissions rep was actively engaged with her and giving a genuine response to this. that added to the fact they were dismissive of my questions makes me not even want to bother to apply.
• some schools were especially rude. to the point that it makes me feel lukewarm about their school altogether. i asked them how many faculty where faculty of color? They were like "uh, well i dont keep statistics. it's not good, but it's comparable to other elite schools." ....... whereas others were like "that's something we're def. concerned about. we have a good handful, but we really are concentrating on recruiting more."
• one big named school was really standoffish and uninformative. i was concerned about the huge class and feeling like I might feel lost, especially coming from such a small undergrad institution. in response they gave me some textbook answer instead of actually engaging with my question. i was like oh and you just inadvertently answered the question by giving me some stock answer and not even really looking at me. i am just a number, thanks. 
• on the flipside, my alma mater was mad real with me. i admitted that i was frankly a bit unsure if it's a good fit because I want to be in a community where many people are interested in public service, CRT, feminist theory, etc. and they were like well I'm not sure if we would be a perfect fit if those things are important to you but you should try to talk to some of the students to get their perspective. made me want to apply more.

so hopefully a little advice to the younger readers: it's really important that you interview people even when you feel under pressure. you don't want to be stuck in a situation that you don't like. and for those that this post is completely irrelevent for, a question on admissions processes in general - how can we accurately assess what a school/employer is all about, and whether we'd fit into that or not (regardless of rankings)? my undergrad school ended up being a good fit, but i think that was more good luck than a good applying process.  and, finally, a question for myself: why do i simultaneously think rankings are stupid but at the same time want to get into a top 5 school so badly?! ah! 

oh and a final request: do not bring your parents to law school/med school/grad school/job fairs. it is not cool. not cool at all.

confronting whiteness (or not?)

so after my bullshit about not letting my posting lag, i let my posting lag. oh well.

anyways, i figured i might share with you why i missed my post last night (though I had the best of intentions).

i'm auditing a class at the law school i work at and fell asleep at my computer trying to complete the reading in time for class. it's definitely been a challenge to keep up with class work when work-work takes precedence, followed by me time. i'm working on doing better. the class is an interdisciplinary look at Color Blindness; each week we tackle a different discipline and examine their approach, thoughts and contributions to Color Blind ideology. and, yes, it's as amazing as it sounds.

so instead of thinking about race, gender and identity for you all last night, i was thinking about race, gender and identity in the context of my class. i want to share with you all one of my observations.

we were assigned to read Pride, Prejudice and Ambivalence: Toward a Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity by Hazel Rose Markus of Stanford University (published in 2008), this in the context or radical theorists like Prof. Charles Lawrence III of Georgetown who confronts the salient-nature of white supremacy and his worry that current research and theory places the focus back onto the individual (the theory of racism as within the individual expressed through prejudicial thinking) at the same time as normalizing racial bias in a way that creates a "everyone's a little bit racist" -- so what? sort of attitude.

brief avenue q interlude which is silly (but true - especially in terms of its tongue in cheek lyrics - though i know some people don't get the tongue in cheek-ness):



anyways, Markus's article was quite a departure from more radical readings that confronted race, racism and white dominance head on, instead of coding things in euphemisms. it was odd because although she confronted her whiteness to a certain extent,

I was surprised to hear myself called a White person. After all these years studying race and ethnicity, I had somehow failed to realize that I "have" race, too. Moreover my observation that things were getting better for American Indi¬ans was experienced as reflecting this White perspective.

it's not enough to acknowledge whiteness, if you don't also acknowledge the power, privilege and dominance that go along with it. moreover, even if you acknowledge whiteness but continue to engage in thinking, research and theory that comes from the desire to prove racial hierarchy, you discredit yourself. this, unfortunately, is what Markus has done.

instead of engaging with race in a meaningful way, she seemed to write this article to assuage white readers that their racism was okay. that they shouldn't feel bad about being "a little bit racist." she uses euphemisms: instead of saying white she says European, and instead of problemitizing white supremacy, she points to abstract things like "Independent Self" (code for white middle-class American values?) and the intricacies and unpacking of race vs. ethnicity. when she is not using euphemisms, she understates the signifance of white supremacy in the beginnings of psychology. psychology was developed as a way to prove racial hierarchy; its methods, tools and processes all came out of this goal. instead of pointing out the ugly truth, she says that although the field is so great, blah blah blah, there are a few "unsavory" parts of it.

even while she pointed out that middle-class whiteness is used as a standard against which everything else is abnormal, she simultaneously reinforced racial hierarchy. she does what Lawrence fears: shifts the focus back on the individual and normatizes racial bias. i do want to consider what she does do: appeal to white audiences. this Lawrence does not do so well. i wonder if is it important to construct arguments and theories that will not produce defensiveness in whites, or is that yet another act of subordination? how do we get whites on board? or even harder, how do we get white knight liberals to see that they're racist too?

can't even to begin

so a while ago, one of my girls brought a couple blog posts to my attention written by a young asian girl, Lillian Wu. one of them is affectionately entitled "how to get girls for asian guys" and the other "how to date an asian girl (for white guys)." where to begin, where to begin?

i don't think there is a sentence on either on of those posts that isn't highly problematic. it would be funny in its ridiculousness if it wasn't so frightening. in all honesty, i had to read through some other blog posts to make sure it wasn't some "tongue in cheek" commentary... it isn't. even worse, she seems to fashion herself as critically engaging with the idea of false stereotypes while replicating all the problems of stereotyping and essentializing a racial group. the fact that she does this to herself makes the entire project more disturbing.

i'm not even sure how to engage with her. or if i want to at all. what i will say is that it is a great example of self-hate, a lack of education about the history of people of color, and an extremely childish racist view of relatioships, power dynamics and cultural practice.

in her first post, aimed at helping asian men secure girlfriends her solution is to defy stereotypes in order to date women, this said while she simultaneously emasculates them and tells them the stereotypes are more often than not true. for some examples:

• she says that asian men need to try and emulate white men
• she refers to non-asian women as exotic
• "the rumor that Asian guys are bad in bed does not help. The negative stereotypes will continue to be an obstacle, especially the ones that carry truth"
• "The drastic difference between white guys and Asian guys is state of mind. White guys score dates because they act like men and take command."
• "Stop being the nice guy if you want to be the one who takes her home."
• "If she is straight, she will not be into a man who is more feminine than she is."

in her second post, aimed at white men who want to date asian women, she essentializes asian women as greedy, spoiled, manipulative and shallow. while acknowledging it's a stereotype, she says it's one that's quite true!

and while, i can go on and on about how messed up wu's view is. i think the bigger question i can pull out of this is how children have become so hateful. instead of brushing aside negative stereotypes, they embrace them. what is the best way to teach children to be more critical (of the themselves, their social and identity groups, and the world around them)? i know that i didn't concretely develop a critical conscious until i went to college and i was taught how to think. and it seems that this lack of critical thinking skills is due in large part to the emphasis on high stakes standardized testing where the correct answer isn't always the critical one.

for example, in middle school we often practiced responding to writing prompts for the standardized tests. two sides of a story were presented, and you had to pick the one you agreed with and argue your point. i distinctly remember my ILA (english) teacher telling us that we shouldn't weigh or consider both sides nor make concessions of any kind for the other side. when we wrote, we had to be 100% on one side, or we wouldn't score well on the test. similarly, students have become less politically active and less willing to challenge group norms in order to pursue "success" in school. pressure from all sides, raising rates of tuition (and debt), etc. create a climate that doesn't encourage critical engagement with material.

i think we need to have a complete reimaging of education, and with that which skills are valued. i strongly believe that if miss wu would have been taught to make critical assessments and to understand her role in either combating or perpetrating negativity and essentialism, the only way that would have been written would be as tongue in cheek commentary to someone else!

"Post-Racial" Politics and History

check out my boss - Kim Crenshaw - on GRITtv talking about "Post-Racial" Politics and History

anger misdirected

so, first, two personal vignettes to frame this post.

- i was riding the metro north train from new york to new haven on a friday evening after work. i had a business suit on because i, at the time, still worked at a corporate firm. the train was very pretty full, but i found a seat in a 3 person row where there was only an old white woman sitting there. to put it lightly, she looked pissed and uncomfortable when i sat down. i framed this by what i looked like, in other words, professional-looking asians usually don't even get noticed by anyone, nor are they really the target for racist white people because of our model minority status. but this woman was not feeling me sitting next to her. i could just feel her discomfort and there was something telling me it was because of my race. not surprisingly, a couple minutes later she got up and walked throughout the (crowded) train to find a new place to sit. i felt like shit. and i have to admit that i cried. it was cruel. it was racist. and i ended up being really angry with myself for even caring.

- yesterday, i was supposed to go out with this man i met. he seemed cool and i thought the little time we spoke at the bar, we connected. apparently not. anyways, day of he starts texting me comments that i felt were sexually inappropriate and disrespectful. it's funny odd fucked up how a man can make a woman feel objectified and, frankly, dirty through a couple of choice words. even worse, he feigned being offended when confronted. and he insinuated that i was just a non-sexual person because i refused to respond to his sexual advances. it was fucked up. and i was upset. i felt dirty, used, gross, and objectified. i wanted to cry. and i ended up being really angry with myself for even caring.

so, i was talking to my boss about how i had been having a bad day and was just ashamed that this worthless man was able to make me feel any kind of way about myself. at the time, i had immediately discounted his words as worthless and sophomoric, but i still was affected. i still felt bad. and it made me sad that i couldn't control my feelings enough to not let insignificant people effect them. but she told me that my anger was completely misdirected. why would i be mad at myself when the only person i should be mad at is him. it was just another example of gender imbalance, when i should be blaming a man, i end up blaming myself for not being able to brush off his disrespectful de-feminizing comments. it reminded my of my first vignette and how i was so angry with myself for even being upset, when really i should've been angry with that woman for making me feel like i was worth less because of the shape of my eyes and the color of my skin.

why do we so often turn back social injustices that occur because of power differences on ourselves instead of critically examining the power dynamics working behind the scenes? will the eventual disruption of these imbalances change how i would feel? or am i just too sensitive? (which would be another example of blaming myself for the deliberate actions of others... ugh a habit that's difficult to break.)

lessons from brazil

first off, a huge thank you for those who were able to come to the event i organized on Monday night, "Does Race (Still) Matter? Reconsidering Affirmative Action in the US and Brazil." to be honest, i woke up in the middle of the night the day before tossing and turning and making mental lists because i was so worried i'd fuck it up. luckily enough, it went pretty smoothly and all things considered i was happy with the turnout. i definitely learned things that i didn't know before (like the fact that GWB didn't know that there were Blacks in Brazil... smfh).

if you weren't able to make it, check out our live twitter blog feed. eventually, i'll get some video and flicks up as well.

anyways, i would like to quickly explore the thing that i found the most interesting and thought-provoking. a recent law was passed in Brazil that mandated that Afro-Brazilian history and culture be taught in public schools. this was to combat the otherwise lack of knowledge about Afro-Brazilian culture and to begin to shift from a white-centric history. yo, this is an amazing idea. something that i believe the U.S. should adopt. what would an education that included and celebrated the history and accomplishments of Blacks, Asians and Latino Americans? how would such an education contribute to a shift in public perception, acceptance and call for affirmative action programs specifically and racial power dynamics more generally?

how can we begin to confront our violent history? we learn of the attempted genocide of the Jewish people during the holocaust, but not of the genocide of the indigenous population in america. we learn of the england's mistreatment of us as a colony, but don't learn about either our violent history of colonization or our de facto colonization in Puerto Rico and the Phillipines. how would teaching our bloody history effect the way our children think about power dynamics?

would a history that includes Asian-Americans help to counter the myth of "forever immigrants?" would a history that includes cross-racial coalition building, such as Asian and Latino coalitions in the sugar fields of hawaii, help us to understand the importance of banding together toward a common grievance?  


and, in english, what if we read more books by people of color than by white people? since we will be the majority-minority soon, right? how would a reading of say Zora's "Their Eyes Were Watching God" effect the way in which we understand language, dialect and the hierarchy of it all? 


and, not just a celebration of the history and culture of other races, but what if we began to look at the history of racism and power in the united states throughout the disciplines. for example, learning how statistics was created by eugenicists in order to prove white superiority? or in science exploring how faulty "scientific processes" were used to bolster eugenicist arguments?


i think that we often look at Brazil as being much more behind us on the issue of race, because of the failure to confront it. yet, now that they are confronting it, we are pretending it is no longer an issue (it is!). and, in some ways, they are far outpacing us.

as a side note: my brother was telling me the other day that there are only 2-3 major textbook publishers in the united states that provide the educational materials for the entire country. they are based in texas(? - i think) and are controlled by one curriculum board comprised of mostly white, mostly conservative members. these are the people that control what the entire country learns. we must demand that this be changed by demanding a larger curriculum change within our public schools.  

Book Review: Glorious, Bernice L. McFadden

Glorious, Bernice L. McFadden's latest book, is a glimpse into Black life during the Harlem Renaissance through the eyes of Easter. Although she is a fictional character, McFadden has obviously done her research, placing Easter into a rich historical backdrop that begins to show how complicated the "question of race" was in the period following slavery. On one hand, McFadden describes Harlem in the time of Marcus Garvey, questions of miscegenation, and whiteness and on the other hand in the South little has changed in terms of overt racist thinking about "natural" racial hierarchy. I found it difficult to imagine how Easter after having connections to Marcus Garvey and to the promise of Black rights could have seem so easily to consigned herself to a later life as a white person's maid. McFadden's exploration of race is especially relevant when juxtaposed with the myth of a "post-racial" America. Many of the same attitudes regarding race are played out in such a way that it is easy to forget that this was over 80 years ago.

McFadden's exploration of the whiteness is also especially relevant. Easter is funded by a "benevolent" benefactor whom posits herself as another wealthy white person who is helping Black people. This relationship becomes more and more problematic as the story unfolds. It is obvious that she never sees herself as equals to the Black characters. Other White characters are portrayed as disloyal traitors and naive "white knights." McFadden paints the white liberal as quite the same in days past as today. However, it is interesting that none of the white characters are "good" or even neutral. Each is cast in a harsh, negative light, and while I don't feel like there is any particular need to have white people cast as saints or benevolent friends in a Black novels, McFadden creates white caricatures with no complexity at all.

While, I felt like the novel made me pause and think as I paralleled the world that McFadden recreates to the state of race in America today, I felt like the book in some places felt undeveloped or cliched. A lot of the issues were well thought out: colorism, Black sexuality, white paternalism, etc. but the characters didn't seem as nuanced, and thus the issues weren't brought to maturity the way they could have.

Yet still, I think it was worth reading.

*** Liked it!

Event: Back to Brazil: Transnational Mobility and Education Among Japanese-Brazilian Migrants

Hi All-

Just wanted to mention an event that I'm planning on attending tonight hosted by the Forum on Migration at Barnard. One of my intellectual topics of interest in college was identity politics in Asian-Latino communities. Although the Asian population is huge in Spanish-speaking countries, there is little discussion or acknowledgment of them in popular context. There, at point, was not an unsubstantial community in New York. If you're from the city, you must have seen a couple of the Chino-Cubano spots like Flor de Mayo - a lot of those are owned by Chinese Cubans who immigrated to Cuba in the 19th century. Cristina Garcia's fictional novel called Monkey Hunting is a cool portrait of multiple generations of Chino-Cubanos and their struggle to fit in.

 *********************************************

FORUM ON MIGRATION

BACK TO BRAZIL
Transnational Mobility and Education Among Japanese-Brazilian Migrants

A PANEL

Thursday, 09/23 6 PM
Sulzberger Parlor
3rd Floor Barnard Hall

Home to the largest Japanese community outside of Japan, Brazil has again become a destination for migration from Japan. Once privileged with high wages, now struck by the economic crisis, thousands of Japanese-Brazilian immigrants in Japan have suddenly been forced to return. Professors María E. Torres-Guzmán and Christian Münch discuss the social and cultural consequences of return migration, focusing on children born and raised in Japan and their position within the educational systems of Japan and Brazil. Torres-Guzmán is professor of bilingual/bicultural education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Münch, visiting assistant professor of bilingual education at Teachers College, Columbia University, is a linguist trained in French, Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese.
Sponsored by Forum on Migration

************************************************

UPDATE:

 

as planned, i attended the talk. a bit disjointed and some parts more interesting than others. here are my thoughts:

- never really considered circular migration (does this just make sound stupid? oh well) in this context up four generations of japanese-brazilians have moved from brazil to japan to brazil yet again, while consciously deciding to keep options open should they want to move back to japan.

- the idea of the trying to claim a geographic location as home. torres-guzman claimed that in a way the japanese brazilians were home in both places, but i disagree. really, they aren't home anywhere, and i guess in that way they can be thought of as home everywhere. 

- the japanese government's accomodation of japanese brazilians. this was shown most poignantly through signage. for example, many of the station signs and other directional signs in public transportation were written in both japanese and portuguese, even though japan is a heavily monolithic culture. i always (maybe mistakenly) think of the japanese government as proud and exclusionary, so it really came as a surprise that there were any efforts at all to transition this population into japan.

- i was also surprised to see how proud the japanese-brazilians living in japan were of their brazilian identity. they were really repping hard. i figured that since they left brazil, they were kinda over it. i also assumed that the brazilian-asians were very insular in brazil, so the transition to japan wouldn't be much of an adjustment. but, the community seems a lot more integrated and a lot more brazilian than i thought. (side note: the reason i thought this was because i have done a bit of research on asian latinos and some communities living in south america are quite insular)

- what i wasn't surprised at, however, but still want to mention is that japanese-brazilians are thought of in japan as somehow dirtier, louder, etc. because of the "stink" of brazil

anyways it was cool. i felt like i was furthering my ed-u-ma-ca-tion. holla.

ethnic food and "but, i have a black friend"

after dinner tonight, my brother, his girl woman girl (woman just sounds funny) and I went for some bubble tea. my brother's girl is still fresh to the states (about a month in), but when she said she never had bubble tea before, i was taken aback. what?! how could she not have had bubble tea? isn't it super-asian (hah! coming from the asian adoptee)?!

i had taken for granted something that i think most asian-americans and, for that matter, americans in general have tried before. milk tea with little tapioca balls in it. so, i asked okay then where did bubble tea originate? taiwan. hm, ok. then, i started to think about how special asian-americans were what with our bubble tea, karoke, korean bbq, tea iced tea, sushi, dim sum, bah minh and pho -- food that i take for granted as transcending their national origin and becoming just "american food." and then after all my constant hate of racial inequality and the social reality of america, i figured tonight's blog post will be different. i'll talk about what i enjoy about american culture.

but, then when my drunkeness wore away a bit, i realized that all of these items that i enjoy so much have really just been commodified and packaged for american consummation and removed from the culture they came from. in a way, they are quintessentially american. where people just assume that most people know about them in an ambiguous "that's asian" type way and all asians are really supposed to know about that.

was i slumming for food? or in other words, was i pretending to be cultured because of my enjoyment of some foods that are marketed to american culture? do we, as americans, think that because we've tried a certain cultural's food that we are all of the sudden culturally sensitive, culturally relative and culturally knowledgable. we go to ethnic restaurants and try ethnic cuisine and all of the sudden we fancy ourselves cultured. like trying the most americanized dish in the culinary repertoire is somehow going to give us insight into a culture.

in what ways does saying "i'm down with taiwanese culture because i'm down with bubble tea" mean exactly the same thing as saying "i'm down with 'cultural diversity' because i have a black friend." instead of understanding and appreciating a culture or a race, we boil it down to an auxilory food or peson that in our head speaks for the race and makes up for our complete lack of cultural or racial understanding. being versed in a variety of cuisines doesn't make you cultured or tolerant or any closer to being knowledgable about the intricacies of group culture. yet, somehow we think it does.

but, in what ways can being introduced to a culture through food help others to appreciate other peoples more? i think that in a very narrow (very very narrow) sense, food can be a foot into the door. but, nothing more than a foot. you can have an introduction to a different culture through the food but you must consciously seek more. otherwise, you're just enjoying food.

how segregated is your city?/how white is your neighborhood?

today both Gawker and FastCompany came out with the same story: a set of maps designed by Eric Fischer that show the racial diversity or lack thereof in the top 40 cities (presumably population-wise) in america. here is the map for new york:

 

both articles go on to explain the way the maps were created:

Fisher used a straight forward method borrowed from Rankin: Using U.S. Census data from 2000, he created a map where one dot equals 25 people. The dots are then color-coded based on race: White is pink; Black is blue; Hispanic is orange, and Asian is green.

For a closer look, you should check out the maps on flicker. if you look at the original size of the maps, you can see the dots much more clearly.

now three small pieces of commentary:

1. I am always careful to consider the ways in which Latinos - black and white - may be misconstrued on the map and also, if we knew their racial identity, what other things the map might illuminate. The census does not count Latino as a race, but using census data the artist had constructed them as a race. but, if you dig below the surface a bit, you can see how this creates an interesting dynamic. what if, for example, all black latinos were concentrated in certain areas of the bronx and white latinos were not? what about all the latinos who weren't sure whether to check "black" or "white" because they were mixed and checked "other" - how might that change the data picture?

2. I thought it was interesting how the titles of the article were changed from source to source. FastCompany, more accurately, asked "How Segregated is your city?" whereas, Gawker (probably in an effort to incite and a nod to that "awkward" hipster irrelevancy/very much relevant manner of speaking) asked "How White is your neighborhood?" However, the choice to talk about whiteness instead of segregation also changes the tone of the entire piece of political to apolitical. Is it not as okay to talk about segregation in this "post-racial" era? Must we reduce it to a discussion on whiteness, that doesn't really bring up segregation? And, what do the viewers of the map suppose the reason for the intense segregation is? I can venture to say most people believe segregation is about preference and comfort. But, most people are wrong. Housing segregation was the result of explicit governmental policies and practices that sought to keep the nation segregated and created a legacy that still affects the housing markets today.

3. so, exactly how segregated is our city? very. in fact, this very question was the subject of an undergraduate research project in my GIS class (basically learning how to use the software that creates these maps. The article acknowledges that New York is not very integrated, but suggest that,

the sheer size of those areas (of extreme segregation) means that the boundary areas because intensely rich areas of cross-cultural ferment.

this, however, is not really the case. when you begin to look deeper into the census data and start plotting race by city block, you see that the boundary areas really are bound. if for instance, you walk up to east harlem and stand on 96th street, the demarcation of white and non-white is stark. though, admittedly, slightly less so than when i wrote the report as an undergraduate because of gentrification and the lack of affordable housing (funny, how quickly the city changes when you aren't looking). what i found is that when you looked at the data block by block, you began to see what looked like integrated census tracks really were segregated blocks even on the border of two neighborhoods. this was all very surprising to me because i thought that moving to new york, i would be in a city full of racial exchange and cultural integration. oh, how naive i was. beyond slumming it to different neighborhoods to taste the "ethnic food" people who truly ventured out of the white bubble surrounding columbia and downtown were few and far between.

the fact that new york city is still an integrated city, coupled with the alarming reversal of brown v. boe (see parents v. seattle schools) makes one wonder just how far we've come and how much further we have to go.

Event: Does Race (Still) Matter? Reconsidering Affirmative Action in the US and Brazil

The U.S. and Brazil appear to be approaching a temporal crossroad on race and affirmative action. While the myth of racial democracy has loosened its grip in Brazil and opened up unprecedented opportunities for Afro-Brazilians, post-racialism is becoming a powerful force in the US, undermining the future of social inclusion programs.  What can advocates for racial equality in the two countries learn from each other?  How can transnational cooperation between governments and civil society advance racial justice in the two Americas?  Come hear leading voices in the Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial discrimination (“JAPER”) in the US and Brazil.

A panel discussion with:

Daniel Teixeria
Staff Lawyer and Projects Coordinator at the Research Center on Labor Relations and Inequality; former Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Demystifying Racial Democracy in Brazil”

Maria Aparecida Silva Bento
Executive Director of the Research Center on Labor Relations and Inequality; Associate Researcher at the University of Sao Paulo;
“Quantifying Employment Discrimination
in Brazilian Banks”

Clarence Lusane
Professor of Political Science in the School of International Service at American University; Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Afro-Brazilians and the Continuing Struggle for Racial Equality”

Kimberlé Crenshaw
Professor of Law at Columbia & UCLA Law School; former Fulbright Chair for Latin America; Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Framing Joint Action in the Matrix of Colorblindness and Racial Democracy”

Monday, September 27^th, 2010 ∙ 6pm
Columbia Law School ∙ Greene Hall, Room 103
Reception to Follow: Columbia Law School ∙ Case Lounge ∙ 7:30pm

Sponsored by: African American Policy Forum ∙ Institute for Research in African American Studies ∙Center for Brazilian Studies ∙ Latin American Law Students Association

white face

So, about a month or so ago I bought "skin lightening creme" ... Yeah not cool. But neither are my acne scars that take forever to fade. My dermatologist told me non-white people get this problem a lot - the pimple is gone but the scar is left behind. It wasn't my proudest purchase but shit it said its for fading acne scars.

Does it work? I don't know. I don't really use it. Maybe I would use it more if it wasn't called "skin lightening," like if it was called "blemish fader" or "acne scar away."

Anyways this is a segway into white face or the crazy ass korean girl I seen the other day while walking through my alma mater. Now, her makeup was for a very pale fair skinned girl, not her. And it was white to the point where I thought to myself well maybe she was in some theatre class??! But, oh, yeah there's no mime-ing classes at barnard.

So I then had to acknowledge that this girl deluded herself into thinking her skin was whiter than it is and none of her fool ass friends spoke up about how crazy she looked.

Self-hate is never attractive.

The oft-acknowledged irony is white girls are off giving themselves melanoma for a little color in the tanning bed. They wish they had some melanin in their skin.

Asian culture constantly befuddles me. I think asian women are beautiful but to not be cool with your color and make obvious attempts to look lighter? That's so crazy to me. When are we going to move past a european style of beauty? From skin whitening treatments to eyelid construction surgery, the entire nation needs a wake up call.

I'm wary of using my scar fading creme because it somehow feels wrong. And it just makes me sad that a beautiful intelligent young women isn't feeling that as well. What is wrong with our girls?

I feel like a lot of asian american girls try to take on a physical identity unlike their own because the lack of asians in the media or fucked up stereotypes.

Thoughts?

colorblindness and the myth of post-racialism

Today, I was trying to think about the ways in which the rhetoric of colorblindness and our so-called "post racial" society are connected. Whereas colorblindness describes a perceived (but dishonest) way of thinking, post-racialism is the assertion that race does not matter anymore (not necessarily that it doesn't exist in true "I don't see color" fashion, but that it is somehow irrelevant). Colorblindness, as a concept, has been in existence for decades, possibly stemming from the democratic ideal "all men are created equal." An ideal, not for all people, but for all white property-owning men. The idea and pull of post-racialism, however, seems like a relatively new concept. With the advent of a black man in our highest office, all of our racial woes are cured. If, the story goes, a black man can obtain the most powerful position in the country (and some might add, the world) than all is white right with race in America. Thus, post-racialism describes a specific time period of idyllic bliss for some liberals when the guilt of slavery has suddenly been lifted off their back. It serves as a catalyst for the colorblindness ideology, one which pushes our idea of colorblindness further. So, post-racialism is both an outgrowth of and a catalyst to colorblindness. One supports the other. The post-racial argument is augmented by a rhetoric of colorblindness; I don't see color, therefore race is no longer on the table. In the same way, colorblindness is augmented by post-racialism; our society no longer has an race issues, in no small part to the fact that we no longer "see" race. 

The unfortunate part is that both have reached the point in which they have become, not only accepted, but also revered. They have become status quo markers of all that is right in the world. They have become politically correct. How is it that they have gone largely unchallenged as a racist ploy to continue to disenfranchise and harm communities of color. Racism 2.0 in effect.

I think it was Malcolm X who said (and I'm quoting from someone quoting him) that we gotta be on the forefront of racism. Every year they come out with a new model and trying to fix racial problems in American with the politics of the civil rights movement is trying to fix a 2011 car with a 1964 owner's manual.

Technology and Education

Just a small post on something that I came across today.

I'm a fan of Raw Toast Design - one of the prints hangs prominently in my bedroom! When I received an email from the artist, Jessie, asking for his blog readers to vote for East Side Community High, a school in grave need of an educational grant (and threw in a free print!), I could not refuse. He writes back:

Unfortunately this Kohl's Cares challenge looks like it will largely (maybe entirely) go to the schools that already have substantial budgets in place and were able to market themselves the best (via free iPad incentives, helicopter rides, and paid advertising) with those budget dollars and not the schools that really really need this money. This school can’t even afford new computers for themselves let alone give them away in exchange for votes like many of the leading schools are doing. May the most deserving schools win... and hopefully not only the ones with the biggest advertising budgets. 

This was the first thing I noticed when I went on the Kohl's facebook site.  All the top schools were Jewish private schools who had the technology and spread to create a campaign to win this challenge. Kohl's relies on the larger community to vote for the schools that are most deserving. However, the "larger community" is not the larger community when it doesn't take into consideration the substantial barriers to technology that schools face when they are underfunded and in poor communities (largely of color) who do not have the same access, networking capacity and time to launch large scale campaigns such as the one Jesse describes above.

Who's idea was it to start a campaign that could ostensibly give money to schools who are already well-funded, or at least much more funded than other schools? Did anyone consider the logistically issues that would pop up in such a funding contest. It's just so frustrating when campaigns that are supposed to do good are not thought out. Social media networking is not necessarily the be all end all answer to social issues and problems and how to solve them and how to choose worthiness. What happens is all the underserved students remain underserved.

So, please fellow readers, vote for East Side Community High (and get a print, too!). Check it out here: http://rawtoastdesign.blogspot.com/2010/08/giving-away-my-work-for-free.html

Takers

So, I (finally) saw Takers tonight. I heard from a friend that it was a "good-bad movie." Meaning for a bad movie it was pretty good. Meaning there was a sorta okay plotline to all that eye candy. From jump, I knew I was gonna like the movie (I can't bring myself to say film..). So I was gonna like it with or without sound. Put Idris Elba, Michael Ealy, Hayden Christianson, Chris Brown, Paul Walker and TI together and it's gonna be a pleasing visual. Anyways, I digress. Here are my final thoughts on it:

***SPOILER ALERT***

In re: "Is it because I'm white?" "Yes."

My fellow alum/sister, Sydnie, recently wrote an interesting post in her blog, entitled "Is it because I'm white?" "Yes." where she relays a story about this white dude who tried to kick it to her and when she refused to bite - he basically asked, "Is it because I'm white?" And, the short and sweet of her answer was yes.

Now, she says she is a fan of black love, and a white guy would have to go above and beyond to be considered. It makes me stop and think, where do I stand on this? Black love is cool. Asian love is cool. I guess white love is cool - though that doesn't slide off my tongue in the same way, maybe because it's so damn politically incorrect. But, interracial love is mad cool. 

A little history... in 1958 Richard and Mildred loving, a white man and black woman, were married out of state to avoid miscegenation laws. (Miscegenation - such an ugly sounding word.) They were charged and their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court found in favor of the Lovings:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

And thus, miscegenation laws died. It was 1963 -- less than 50 years ago. 

Public Defenders and Race: Something to Think About

My brother sent me over this article entitled "Public Defenders as Effective as Private Attorneys," which basically finds just that. Yay! Public defenders! Disparaties between the outcomes of those who have a private attorney as a public defender do matter in regards to race though. Surprise, surprise. The article states:

...they noted some interestingly varied outcomes when looking at a defendant’s race. “White defendants are the only defendants who benefit from having a private attorney at the release decision,” they write. Specifically, they found whites with private attorneys are 2.7 times more likely than whites with public defenders to have bail granted. For people of color, private attorneys may not help in getting bail, but they do facilitate plea bargains. “Black defendants who retain a private attorney are almost two times more likely to have the primary charge reduced than black defendants who are represented by a public defender,” the researchers write.

Now, the first point seems like the court favors wealthy white men over poor white men. And, wealthier black men over poor black men. Now, I wonder what causes the difference between white defendents whose attorney choice affects the release decision and black defendents whose attorney choice affects their possibility of a charge reduction? Is the court more likely to be "fair" or on their toes with attorneys that are perceived to have a higher stake  and interest in the case? Even within this seeming divisision between those who can afford an attorney and ones that can not, one realizes that the disparaties over sentencing whites and blacks remain strong.