“Akira” Looking for White Guys to Play Asian Guys

I was asked to publicize this post by Racebending.com: Akira adaptation courts white actors.  Hollywood is turning the Japanese graphic novel Akira into a movie, and they’re turning the Japanese main characters into White main characters.  From racebending.com:

For the role of Tetsuo: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield and James McAvoy.
For the role of Kaneda: Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix.

Hollywood is once again playing its old games.  First 21, then the Last Airbender, and now Akira.  (That’s oversimplifying it, of course.  Racebending happens all the time when the originals happen to be Asian.)

Racebending is doing an excellent job of highlighting all the whitewashing that goes on in American movies.  I don’t know what can be done about this–other than complaining every time it happens–but I do think it’s good to be aware, just so you’ve got some intellectual ammunition when people say that racism is a thing of the past or that the media is neutral.  Tons of Asian American male actors are looking for work in the American film industry.  They aren’t going to find it in this movie, at least not as main characters.

56 thoughts on ““Akira” Looking for White Guys to Play Asian Guys

  1. Start with shaming and ridiculing the producers like they did Ms Wallace. Yes, attack the people responsible for it directly.

  2. I guessed I won’t be seeing this movie anytime soon. Be brave and go against the tide…shame the shit out of it. Turn this into a negative and people will be hesitant to go watch it. Facebook activitism time.

  3. I don’t know what happened to the second comment?
    but in response to that a boycott is not going to work.

    What might work is a funny campaign with some pressure. (calling Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures is not going to work).
    Emails like
    Asian guy from missing Akira, Have you seen?
    So if you really care email people like
    Dino Gioia. Title: VP, Finance at Legendary Pictures
    dgioia@legendarypictures.com

    and find top Warner Bros executives numbers and emails.

    Ask that one of they two actors be asian (the will never make both)
    ans make suggestions.. like
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Byung-hun
    If you have seen The Good, The Bad, The Weird
    That guy oozes cool, almost hate him as he is so cool, cooler than Jonny Depp

    anyone else want to help track down phone#s and emails?

  4. You have to make a stink… you have to EMBARASS the WB people who make decisions. You need their bosses and their stockholders asking them, “How the *$#&*% could you be so stupid?…” then you get action.

    When these guys are fearing their jobs, that’s when they suddenly get a conscience– anything less and it’s like, “Screw the Asians… who cares? I mean, they’re not gonna DO anything, right?”

  5. I meant ( calling Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures RACIST is not going to work).
    by all means call them on the phone.
    just need to track down the relevant phone#s and emails

  6. @@Lingyai

    I would suggest that your method is even less effective. Phone call ends at the reception. E-mail ends up in the trash can. Remember this isn’t just a once off thing based on one person’s decision, it’s a work culture that extends to dissing asians as okay.

    Like King said, we have to make a big stink about so people would actually start that we’re not happy.

    Why not cast Daniel Wu as Kaneda? Big name and Asian American.

    @king

    Agree with every single word.

  7. I am talking about polite pain. Not some simple writing campaign or even less effective facebook petition.
    Deluge their business emails a phones, and maybe outside their office.
    Being an ass doesn’t build a campaign it just allows a cause to be dismissed easily by others.
    Making reasonable arguments will have people shaking their head in agreement.
    Anyone want to help track down emails and phone#s?
    better than complaining on blogs.

  8. @Lingyai

    Again I suggest that facebook petition in combination of protest in a public arena is more useful – e-mail spamming will never work, and I’m not sure about the legal aspects of phone-spamming.

    Any action needs to be loud and very visible.

  9. Producers are still very much concerned with profits. They feel the movie wont be a hit with Asian actors. Sad.

  10. Pingback: Jesus in India gets cancelled | bigWOWO

  11. Wow… I think that Constance has it right on the Great Wall/Matt Damon/ White hero issue:

    http://www.eonline.com/news/783987/fresh-off-the-boat-s-constance-wu-slams-matt-damon-s-latest-role-in-racist-film-the-great-wall

    “”We have to stop perpetuating the racist myth that a only white man can save the world,” Wu wrote, adding, “It’s not based on actual fact. Our heroes don’t look like Matt Damon. They look like Malala. Ghandi. Mandela. Your big sister when she stood up for you to those bullies that one time.” “

    Predictably, the people in the comment section HATE what she’s saying

    Dwi N
    I see her point, yet she’s failing to remember that this is Hollywood. It’s just the way things are. B*tching about it isn’t going to change anything.

    namora
    What myth you stupid mainland halfwit? It is a fictional movie. For the record: 1) So funny when limousine liberals take a fail with PC nonsense. 2) Go back to your communist filth country slag. We don’t need filth like you.

    red69381346
    have you seen how many African Americans have been in hero roles lately???? I didn’t see you bringing that up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    namora1
    Yeah….a much bigger amount than the percentage of the population AAs represent.

    skulldruggery
    b/tch pipe down.

    locust10
    I completely agree, however, this is just another Hollywood movie where Matt Damon is the star and which happens to be white. Historically, is it correct? are all heroes white? No! It’s Hollywood.

    PAG11105
    White ppl dont care Constance. You cannot change the minds of the general populace that surround themselves in mediocrity everyday. They need a good fantasy or two to keep their depression at bay

    sain223
    Look if she has such a problem with the way the director is directing his film then she can leave an not do the movie. I’m pretty sure no forced her to sign the contract to be an actress in the movie.

    swipersb18
    calm down hoe…. its just a movie

    Walter Retlaw25
    The Chinese could use a “white savior” or two. Their culture is oppressive and repressive. Maoism. Cultural revolution. One-child policy. Child labor. Sweat shops. The suppression of free speech and ideas. Etc. They obviously can’t free themselves. And the Mongols are no longer much of a force, so I don’t see them coming to the rescue anytime soon. Dance with the wolves, China. Dance!

    Lwhl Staggs
    tell her to whine somewhere else… perhaps she should look to work in China/Hong Kong… they make movies there where only a Chinese man can save the world!

  12. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to be protesting The Great Wall movie just yet. It might be better to wait until we see what the movie is actually like. Jumping on it now carries the risk of backfiring if the film turns out to not actually revolve around the white saviour trope. I agree it looks worrying from the little information we have though.

  13. I dunno… You take the historical Great Wall of China (built for a very specific purpose) You postulate that it was instead built to keep out flying demons ) or some such nonsense) and somehow the star of the Great Wall OF CHINA movie ends up being a 40-year-old White guy in Chinese armor. Damon seems to be the main guy on all of the advance posters, I’m assuming he is the star.

    What exactly is this going to redeem this?

  14. I just love the Asian American Female Celebrities (them again) spouting their usual nonsense. Asian Men don’t look like Matt Damon, because White men are their dating partners. Just look at Constance Wu’s grievance rant about the Great Wall Movie.

    Give it up Bryon. AA is a lost cause at this point and going forward to the next millennium.

  15. In my eyes it’s the same old thing.

    I can agree that Constance Wu’s argument is sound. Matt Damon should not be the star of The Great Wall of China. There simply was no significant European presence in China at the time that the Great Wall was built. Period.

    On the other hand… when it comes to her personal choices, it seems to be an old and all too familiar story.

    https://twitter.com/constancewu/status/566762566961995778

  16. Much of her comments are just random rambling without any incoherence like the majority of our new age bimbos. Many Asian women are your quintessential, perpetual juveniles in grade school.

    “Our heroes don’t look like Matt Damon. They look like Mandela, Gandhi, and not a peep about a person of her racial composite“.

  17. On the other hand… when it comes to her personal choices, it seems to be an old and all too familiar story. — King

    Constance Wu’s personal life choices are simply not up for debate. However she chooses to find happiness is not something about which any of the rest of us need care.

  18. ^Which is why I did not condemn her personally, but instead pointed to the *pattern* which seems, at this point undeniable.

  19. King, I disagree. There’s no reason to reference Constance Wu’s personal life in this context on this blog outside of a pejorative one. There’s no ‘pattern’: Ms. Wu argued that Matt Damon’s casting in this new film appears problematic, for reasons she articulated. You agreed that her reasoning was sound.

    But then you make reference to her personal life, as if that has anything to do with anything. It does not, and to do so here, knowing as you do the antagonism Asian American women in interracial relationships absorb on this blog, is to suggest that her argument is somehow complicated and/or refuted by her personal life choices. At the very least, you imply endorsement of the difficult and limited (read: sexist) thinking popular in this space that suggests that people, especially women of color, should have less opportunity to engage anti-racism activity in support of their group if they embrace multiculturalism in their personal lives.

    All of that is wrong. Constance Wu’s personal life has nothing to do with her stance on the casting of a Zhang Yimou film.

  20. Yes, it does. It reeks hypocrisy and invites criticism from people who see it.

  21. And before Snoopy say I’m with Bryon and rest of the Asian whiners on this blog, Asian America’s vision is all about the patronizing the White status quo and embracing it to its fullest. It’s pretty much an empty suit by itself.

  22. Snoopy Jenkins the equivocator wrote:

    All of that is wrong. Constance Wu’s personal life has nothing to do with her stance on the casting of a Zhang Yimou film.

    Constance Wu needs to make up her mind: only interested to speak out for AF media issues or “all Asian representation” even those from China? What’s your criteria and limit on telling people what to do and how to feel about media racism and social racism issues?

    Who made you, James Lamb, the arbiter on what’s allowed to be discussed and kosher? It simply smacks of hypocrisy for you to tell AMs what to find racist or not, when neither you nor Jenn Fang calls out the WM racism whatsoever:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/4vhn44/white_male_shoots_asian_female_after_break_up_in

    Or even the Okinawa rape-murders:

    http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/murder-rape-charges-recommended-in-okinawa-woman-s-death-1.413845

  23. Chr wrote:

    Asian America’s vision is all about the patronizing the White status quo and embracing it to its fullest. It’s pretty much an empty suit by itself.

    So is this a hint that you and Kyrie are going to get a room and get it on together? Embrace your sexuality and admit to it! Be proud like John Cho, Justin Lin and Simon Pegg to tell other people how they should feel about sexuality and not like George Takei who actually lives the life.

  24. Snoopy:

    There’s no ‘pattern’: Ms. Wu argued that Matt Damon’s casting in this new film appears problematic, for reasons she articulated.

    And this is why we sometimes have problems talking to Snoopy. We can’t get him to acknowledge the facts, and so we often never get the opportunity to talk about opinions.

    In fact, there are patterns on both counts. There’s the pattern that Ms. Wu is talking about, which is that White men often star in big, Asian-themed movies. Then there’s the pattern of Asian women dating or marrying non-Asian men, which Constance herself practices. I blogged about that pattern here. It doesn’t matter whether you’re looking at OK Cupid data or census data or just counting celebrities on your fingers. There’s a pattern.

    Is it relevant? Given the enormity of the pattern, yes. People can take seeing one well-known environmentalist owning multiple homes (Al Gore) or driving a Hummer. Now if all environmentalists do it, or if most do it, or even if a large number do it, then that’s a problem for the movement. If nearly all environmentalists drove Hummers, it would be hard for them to persuade others to drive Priuses or to take the subway. For obvious reasons.

    So yes, I think King is right. Snoopy has a right to his own opinion, but facts are facts.

  25. Keep in mind that it does nothing to detract from what activists are saying. If guys or gals from Greenpeace drive from Florida to Philly in their Hummers without carpooling to preach about the problems of global warming, the fact that they drove Hummers doesn’t make global warming any less real. But it does make people less likely to listen.

  26. Sorry, no. There’s no pattern here; what’s evident is that some people choose to plumb the personal lives of various Asian American pundits and activists, and find their perspectives wanting if the observers do not find a total shunning of non-Asian people in the personal lives of those they place under the proverbial microscope.

    This is textbook observer bias, nothing more.

    The personal lives of political speakers are and should be off-limits. Constance Wu’s personal relationships have literally nothing to do with her stance on Whitewashed movie roles. BigWOWO, you, King and others here assume that her personal relationships inform her politics and/ or vice versa, and you improperly and illogically ascribe value to those personal relationships to distract and/or distract from her message.

    Further, this tactic, where the personal lives of the speakers are examined along with their speech, is employed selectively, against Asian American women in this space far in excess of any examination of Asian American men. It’s base sexism, really, and you discredit yourselves when you endorse such tactics.

    BigWOWO, anyone who is less likely to listen to an environmentalist speak on the dangers of climate change because the speaker used internal combustion engines to arrive at the venue on time is someone predisposed against environmentalist messages before the environmentalist talks. In like fashion, some people here do not wish to absorb political messages from Asian American women, by and large, because some of those messages will promote a feminism that does not kowtow to Asian American masculinity first, last, and always. Examinations of the personal lives of some Asian American women prove nothing more than a convenient excuse for those men who cannot handle political women from their own communities.

    Facts are facts, BigWOWO. Constance Wu called out Matt Damon’s recent movie role, and happens to be in a committed relationship with a man of European descent. Your implication that her personal relationship informs her politics (the only reason to note any so-called ‘pattern here, lest we forget) implies that her politics are a function of her sexuality, a sexist notion if ever there was one. But even if someone chose to believe that sexist tripe in this case, what are they to make of the fact that her stance calls for less White male visibility here, not more?

    People are free to listen to Constance Wu and women of color like her, or not. Should they choose to dismiss the opinions and perspectives of women of color though, they very least they can do is remain consistent on why. Constance Wu’s personal life isn’t at issue here. Sexism is.

  27. Sorry Snoopy, but I must disagree with your disagreement.

    The very same people who argue that the practices of the messenger have no bearing on the message are among the FIRST to point the finger when a Preacher is caught philandering, or when a Fiscal Conservative is caught dodging his taxes.

    As has been said above, the message can be kept separate from the messenger ito some degree. But the argument becomes “fruit from the poisoned tree” in the eyes of many when the salesman is found not to use his own products.

  28. Cosign with King.

    When the salesman doesn’t use his own products, he sometimes can’t even tell you how it works, let alone tell you how it’s supposed to change your life. Of course his personal life informs his professional life; there’s no way around it. An activist can memorize the entire political playbook and talking points, but if he or she hasn’t practiced what he or she has preached in real life, I’d say he or she doesn’t really know what he or she is talking about.

  29. King, no Asian American woman need offer her body to an Asian American man for clout and respectability on Asian American political issues. None. To assume otherwise is to connect politics to sexuality in a manner that benefits men and harms women. All of that furthers patriarchy. All of that is sexist.

    What of Constance Wu’s statement, a statement with which you agreed, becomes ‘fruit from the poisoned tree’ because of her personal relationships? Again, she’s argued for less White male visibility, so exactly what is the problem with her statement, imposed by her personal relationship with a White man?

    What, do you expect her to desire less White male visibility in her personal life because she wants movies on ancient China, however fantastic, to focus primarily on Asian people? You realize that Ms. Wu doesn’t live in ancient China, yes?

    Constance Wu, and women like her, are told by some Asian American men that they will lack credibility and popular support for their points of view if they date/ marry outside of their race. These men tie female sexuality to political credibility, and find none of that dynamic problematic because they benefit from male-dominated cultural sensibilities, both within their racial/ ethnic groups and within the larger American society. King, the same dynamic happens with Black communities, where Black men and women are strongly encouraged to forge lasting relationships with each other, especially if they engage political or social issues in the public square.

    This community self-regulation cannot prove helpful. Many Black and Asian American professionals avoid politics altogether, to avoid needless personalized backlash over their personal life choices from strangers in their communities. Given this, these communities do not benefit from these professionals’ counsel, a dangerous status-quo in many urban locales.

    And we should remember: preachers and fiscal conservatives try to sell others on particular ways of living, be they religious precepts or conservative economic policies. Many women of color simply attempt to speak and write about their experiences and the challenges they face. They aren’t salesmen, they’re citizens. They don’t proselytize, they inform. Blog. And they are told to sit down and shut up if they don’t copulate with men from prearranged acceptable demographics by men who don’t want to listen to their narratives in the first place.

    Constance Wu’s relationship isn’t the problem here. Refusing to heed Ms. Wu’s perspective because of one’s negative judgment of her personal relationship is the problem. Considering her statement ‘fruit from the poisoned tree’ is the problem. This is sexism, King, and sexism is the problem.

  30. Think about it… If there is some guy preaching to you every day about how Jesus has power to change your life and how adherence to the. 10 commandments is the blue print for personal happiness and an ordered life—then you discover that he’s a drunk who beats up his wife and molests the children at his day care…

    DOES THAT REALLY HAVE NO BEARING TO YOU ON WHAT HE IS TRYiING TO CONVERT YOU TO?

    Now sure, that is purposely an extreme case, but it extrapolates from the same logic. The life testimony of the life repudiates the testimony of the tongue.

  31. Again, you engage a false analogy, King. Asian American women who promote political ideals are not theologians paid to promote particular moral precepts in public. They are just people who share what they think, like anyone else. Agree, disagree, or remain indifferent to their perspectives, but judge their perspectives on the ideas alone, not their personal lives. A woman’s personal life has no bearing on her ideas’ intellectual merit.

    Further, Constance Wu writing a short letter about Matt Damon’s appearance in a fantasy movie based on ancient China while dating a White man is in no way parallel to an alcohol-dependent Christian preacher who inflict domestic battery on his spouse and engages in inappropriate sexual relations with children under his care. That’s insane. The first example is a citizen who writes a letter, the second is a criminal who deserves law enforcement intervention.

    Women of color who write about their political ideas need not attempt to convince anyone of anything. They simply express themselves. If some people here are too afraid to evaluate their ideas on the merits of those ideas alone, that says more about some observers here than anything else. Constance Wu isn’t selling you anything, King. Your logic is flawed.

  32. King and BigWOWO, it bears repeating: what exactly about Constance Wu’s argument — in favor of less White male visibility in Hollywood productions — has been negatively impacted by her personal life choices? What about her statement makes less sense to you?

    It still stands to reason that if you all are correct in your implication that Asian American female personal life choices to indulge interracial relationships color the political perspectives of these women of color, so much so that they should automatically lose credibility among Asian Americans, then shouldn’t Constance Wu champion Matt Damon’s casting in that movie? According to your ‘fruit from the poisoned tree’ logic — a logic I find flawed and sexist, but whatever — shouldn’t Constance Wu promote Matt Damon’s casting?

    She doesn’t. She’s totally, publicly against it. So where specifically has the ‘poison’ affected her thinking, guys? You all write as if her perspectives are tainted by her relationship with a White man, so explain in detail how that taint operates. Don’t worry, we’ll wait. Because it appears that in this instance, the Asian American woman with the White significant other promotes the same pro-Asian American perspectives that most everyone else from that community would and has.

    So how has her experience in a interracial relationship affected anything? King and BigWOWO, how is her personal life at all relevant here?

  33. Hypocrisy (noun): the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.

    Nobody likes a hypocrite.

    Snoopy, you’re trying to separate a person’s words from that person, and that person’s actions from that person. That’s just not how things work in real life. Words will always be associated with the people who spoke them, and the merits of what they say will be determined by their actions. You speak of common sense, yet you ignore it.

  34. “Again, you engage a false analogy, King. Asian American women who promote political ideals are not theologians paid to promote particular moral precepts in public. They are just people who share what they think, like anyone else.”

    But all those who preach are not necessarily paid either. Some are / Some aren’t. Are you saying that if someone unpaid preaches to you the virtues of the Christian Faith, but curses and verbally abuse homosexuals regularly in their daily activities, that we should not take into account their “personal life” and just look solely upon the claims that they make divorced from anything that they do?

  35. Yeah, so…it looks like once again, King and company are destroying the arguments of Snoopy and company.

    Snoopy, as King said upthread, the liberals are usually the first ones to cast stones when one’s personal life and political message don’t match. Reappropriate does it all the time. Hey, another liberal once attacked me for working in the mortgage industry. And that’s fine. Bottom line: if one’s personal life doesn’t match one’s political message, then one’s political message rightfully suffers.

  36. BigWowo and King, you guys are contravening false analogy fallacy, huge errors.

    Don’t you guys know the Correlation without Causation logic?

    Your analogies of an environmentalist driving hummers, fruits from poisoned tree, and Christian evangelist who curses and verbally abuses homosexuals

    There are direct correlations between the messengers’ actions and their messages in all your analogies, their actions are directly associated with direct consequences of their messages. Result in “practice what you preach” or nobody listens.

    Hummers are bad for the environment, therefore the messenger cannot tell others to save the environment. Direct correlation/association.

    A poisoned tree produces poisoned fruits, therefore cannot pretend to sell fresh fruits. Direct correlation/association.

    Christian evangelist who curses, verbally abuses homosexuals, molests children should not preach to others about morals. Again Direct correlation/association.

    Constance Wu and Nicholas Cage never preached to others about dating prospects, their messages were not to “tell Asian women to stop dating White men”, that was never their message, therefore who they married in their personal dating lives have NO bearing to their messages.

    Constance Wu and Nicholas Cage’s messages were to “endorse Asian men into Hollywood protagonist leading roles.” Therefore there were NO direct correlation/association between their messages and their actions.

    Do you guys see the differences between your false analogies vs. Constance Wu analogy now? Your analogies have direct correlation and direct consequences, Constance Wu does not.

    ======================

    I want to ask you guys something. If an Asian female became President of the U.S. and she’s married to a white man. She enacted and overturned policies that favors Asian Americans, she enacted to rid and demolish college admission affirmative action, she enacted to get more Asian men & women into leading roles in Hollywood, she enacted to better dating prospects for Asian men. Would you guys become hypocrites and endorse to support her?

    I just replied to your post here:
    http://reappropriate.co/2016/07/dear-john-feministjohncho/#comment-2807696025

  37. Pingback: “My body is separate from my politics,” interracial marriage, and where the environmentalists all drive Hummers | bigWOWO

  38. Skeet the non-fact checker wrote:

    Don’t you guys know the Correlation without Causation logic?

    One of the most fundamental statistics fallacies is “correlation does not imply causation” but you’d have to explain your new “Jenn Fang logic” of misogy-naming stuff out of thin air…

    What does “correlation WITHOUT causation” even mean?

    Constance Wu and Nicholas Cage’s messages were to “endorse Asian men into Hollywood protagonist leading roles.” Therefore there were NO direct correlation/association between their messages and their actions.

    Do you guys see the differences between your false analogies vs. Constance Wu analogy now? Your analogies have direct correlation and direct consequences, Constance Wu does not.

    Actually it’s Nicholas Cage who said that his son and AMs are screwed by Haolewood racism. Constance Wu only called out the AF “yellowface” in previous projects and promoted pro-AF in the past. “Great Wall” is a departure in terms of “heroes” statement and not about AMs in the media.

    Constance Wu for the most part is all about pro-AF empowerment – which you and Jenn Fang acknowledged and disparaged John Cho on. Therefore, if Constance Wu wants to speak for “all Asians/Chinese” then you need to go check your “practice what you preach” box and the personal then becomes the political.

    While she’s not about directly saying anything about the IR disparity issue, the fact she now claims to speak for AMs in Haolewood and society means automatically her personal life will be subject to scrutiny. If she only sticks to her original comments about AF empowerment, then leave it at that and her personal life supports her public statements.

    While there’s no direct “correlation” between her dating life and public comments about Haolewood in terms of logic rigor, the fact remains there are such things as “character witness” for a reason in the public domain. Constance Wu CHOSE to speak out and become a public figurehead, so therefore the personal becomes political. Had she only stayed on about AF racebending roles, then you have a point. But now the debate has changed to where she can’t but help to have her personal life be commented

    I want to ask you guys something. If an Asian female became President of the U.S. and she’s married to a white man. She enacted and overturned policies that favors Asian Americans, she enacted to rid and demolish college admission affirmative action, she enacted to get more Asian men & women into leading roles in Hollywood, she enacted to better dating prospects for Asian men. Would you guys become hypocrites and endorse to support her?

    I know you’re not James Lamb on Reappropriate because you comment statements in direct contrast against him sometimes, but this is just the same Snoopy Jenkins empty rhetoric and hyperpoble and reification of fiction to make it sound like real data.

    First off, check your grammar that it’s not even the same concept and is self-contradictory in the same sentence: enacted and OVERTURNED policies that favors Asian Americans and then about policies to help AMs?

    Is this based in reality and how can I move there? Or you’re just making up fantasies and projecting like Ramakrishnan and Jenn Fang and James Lamb like the good sycophant that you are?

  39. For the record, I’m glad that even Constance Wu has called out the Haolewood racism and even on some levels “support” the fact that a proud sista can tell it like it is.

    However, how her career gonna go now after FOB will be very “interesting” to watch and of course, her personal life will be about pro-AF empowerment only or be subject to public scrutiny…

  40. Ah how typical, after losing the debate then kids resort to petty childish insults.

    Causation is cause and effect. We’re talking about Correlation with direct consequences between the message carrier and the messenger’s actions.

    aardvark

    I did not disparage John Cho, go fact check for yourself.

    Constance is not talking about AMs in society, she’s talking about AMs in Haolewood and therefore has no bearing with dating whatsoever.

    “character witness” is a sham excuse, unless she killed someone, her character shouldn’t be an issue just for marrying out of race. Why is a White boyfriend becomes a character issue. Would you guys still “character assassin” her if she was dating a black man?

    First off, check your grammar that it’s not even the same concept and is self-contradictory in the same sentence: enacted and OVERTURNED policies that favors Asian Americans and then about policies to help AMs?

    Comprehension issue? Don’t you guys often cry about affirmative action admissions being lawful? To overturn that, a politician must enact/legislate another law to dismantle afirm-act.

    Is this based in reality and how can I move there? Or you’re just making up fantasies and projecting like Ramakrishnan and Jenn Fang and James Lamb like the good sycophant that you are?

    It’s hypothetically speaking for the sake and convenience of arguments, also to expose you guys’ contradictions. Point is, if it was reality you guys would be jumping for joy.

    For the record, I’m glad that even Constance Wu has called out the Haolewood racism and even on some levels “support” the fact that a proud sista can tell it like it is.

    However, how her career gonna go now after FOB will be very “interesting” to watch and of course

    Good, that’s all we’re asking.

    I read some people online are threatening her by cutting off bridges, whatever that means.

  41. Snoopy Jenkins the equivocator wrote:

    Common sense.

    What’s this supposed to mean? Common sense at one point made it seem blacks should be slaves and that Japanese Americans should be be into prison camps…

    This is textbook observer bias, nothing more.

    You’re a humanities major, so the ideas of quantum mechanics are way above your comprehension, but look it up: Schrodinger’s thought experiments.

    The personal lives of political speakers are and should be off-limits…you, King and others here assume that her personal relationships inform her politics and/ or vice versa, and you improperly and illogically ascribe value to those personal relationships to distract and/or distract from her message.

    Textbook definition of hypocrisy there, chief. Would you “ascribe” this same exact statement to Donal Trump? No? Why not? You and Jenn Fang stated many times in the past your political opinions on politicians and now you’re a complete total hypocrite!

    what’s evident is that some people choose to plumb the personal lives of various Asian American pundits and activists, and find their perspectives wanting if the observers do not find a total shunning of non-Asian people in the personal lives of those they place under the proverbial microscope.

    See, this statement would be okay if your hypothetical person espouses “free love and interracial marriages for all” and the personal is the political in that scenario.

    But in COnstance Wu’s case she’s now advocating “PRO-Asian American topics” that directly encompasses both genders and identity/racial politics. When you make that jump then you have no basis for your hypocritical claims.

    the personal lives of the speakers are examined along with their speech, is employed selectively, against Asian American women in this space far in excess of any examination of Asian American men. It’s base sexism, really, and you discredit yourselves when you endorse such tactics.

    Amy Tan and Maxine Kingston-Hong got nothing on you, James Lamb to point fingers at the evul AM footbinders! lol

    In case your brain can’t handle the discussions: this forum and commenters have pointed out “sellout AMs” plenty of times in the past. You just cherrypick your racist statements against AMs because that’s your racist agenda: like the Okinawa rapist-murderer, place yourself above Asians with the US society’s racial pecking order.

    some people here do not wish to absorb political messages from Asian American women, by and large, because some of those messages will promote a feminism that does not kowtow to Asian American masculinity first, last, and always.

    This takes the cake of CONFLATION of different topics and STRAWMAN (once again) to your usual wag the dog empty rhetorics of blaming AMs for sexism.

    If James Lamb and Jenn Fang want to promote your brand of SJW feminism then leave us AMs out of it, like Byron already wrote. Don’t make up racist lies against AMs with your misogy-naming and fabricated data.

    Post articles where appropriate against AM misogynists when it’s explicit and post articles about WMs, BMs, LMs, et al who rape and kill AF out of sexist intents when it’s explicit in the news. But don’t go around making up fake words and lies against AMs. Then and only then do you have a case to stand on…

    Examinations of the personal lives of some Asian American women prove nothing more than a convenient excuse for those men who cannot handle political women from their own communities.

    Even more of your racist lies. Because NOBODY, BUT NOBODY on BigWOWO ever made any negative statements against Judy Chu or Grace Meng: who are some of the most passionate and empowered AFs speaking out against anti-Asian racism and making inroads towards true progress for APIAs.

    You make up your Strawmans but can’t even back it up with any EVIDENCE!

    what are they to make of the fact that her stance calls for less White male visibility here, not more?

    Yet, another distortion of facts and spin doctoring by James Lamb! Where has Constance Wu made this statement? She only outlashed against the white savior trope, but never called for less WM visibility.

    Stop your lies, James Lamb!

    Constance Wu’s personal life isn’t at issue here. Sexism is.

    No! Your anti-AM racism is at issue here. Full stop!

  42. Snoopy Jenkins the equivocator wrote:

    To assume otherwise is to connect politics to sexuality in a manner that benefits men and harms women. All of that furthers patriarchy. All of that is sexist.

    And yet you have no problems against a racist neo-colonial attitude whereby WMs create lies against AMs to perpetuate a system whereby AF “offer her body to” a white man “for clout and respectability” in the racist Haolewood system.

    Sounds like you’re just like that Okinawa rapist-murderer: promoting and benefitting off the neo-colonialism.

    Again, she’s argued for less White male visibility, so exactly what is the problem with her statement, imposed by her personal relationship with a White man?

    Once again, the James Lamb spin doctoring! Where has Constance Wu stated this exactly? Quote it!

    She’s called out the white savior complex and racebending, not about lesser WM visibility.

    Stop your racist lies!

    You realize that Ms. Wu doesn’t live in ancient China, yes?

    You realize you don’t live in contemporary Asian American lives in USofA, yes? What gives you the right to even make any comments about APIA issues in the first place?

    You’re just a racist trying to put down AMs as per your neo-colonialist attitudes.

    are told by some Asian American men that they will lack credibility and popular support for their points of view if they date/ marry outside of their race.

    This is just a truckload of horse manure! It’s precisely they date WM in Haolewood they gain popular support by Phil Yu and Jeff Yang and others clamoring to be part of the establishment: because Haolewood promotes such couples.

    You call people here fringes, so at the same time your statement is full of hypocrisy, as usual!

    And we should remember: preachers and fiscal conservatives try to sell others on particular ways of living, be they religious precepts or conservative economic policies. Many women of color simply attempt to speak and write about their experiences and the challenges they face. They aren’t salesmen, they’re citizens. They don’t proselytize, they inform. Blog.

    And make up lies and create pogroms against AMs with demagoguery about people being “conservatives” when self-anointed SJW liberals are just as racist, if not more.

    Also, people here only have called out the “questionable support” of PUBLIC figures trying to make statements and NOBODY has said Constance Wu “shouldn’t” date whoever she wants.

    Stop your racist lies, James Lamb!

    This is sexism, King, and sexism is the problem.

    You are anti-AM racist, James Lamb, and you are the problem!

  43. Snoopy Jenkins the equivocator wrote:

    judge their perspectives on the ideas alone, not their personal lives. A woman’s personal life has no bearing on her ideas’ intellectual merit.

    By that standard, I hope you’re championing Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers as the great WM saviors they are for creating a country founded on the ideals of freedom, equality, justice, and liberty for all!

    The first example is a citizen who writes a letter, the second is a criminal who deserves law enforcement intervention.

    Deflection antics 101…

    Women of color who write about their political ideas need not attempt to convince anyone of anything. They simply express themselves. If some people here are too afraid to evaluate their ideas on the merits of those ideas alone, that says more about some observers here than anything else. Constance Wu isn’t selling you anything, King. Your logic is flawed.

    No, you’re just a lying hypocrite, James Lamb. Full stop!

    By virtue of you trolling and condescending towards everyone here, you ARE about selling your racist lies in hopes of perpetuating the idea that “fringe sexist AMs” trying to keep the AFs down.

    Constance Wu is (rightly) trying to sell the idea that WM savior complex is racist and outdated.

    Others here are selling the idea that Constance Wu’s personal life (unfortunately because that’s HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS) affects her stance and she cannot be seen as pro-AM no pro-Asian of both genders because of her relationship HISTORY – not just the current boyfriend.

    Also, by the fact anyone who puts out political ideas to the internet for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION is going to get comments and reactions. Why aren’t you out there telling the actual racist WMs who have written much worse and disparaging remarks against Constance Wu?

    Because you, James Lamb, is a racist hypocrite against AMs!

    what exactly about Constance Wu’s argument — in favor of less White male visibility in Hollywood productions

    Quote her exact statement or stop your lies!

    She’s not against less WM visibility, but was aghast against the racebending and white savior complex.

    then shouldn’t Constance Wu champion Matt Damon’s casting in that movie? According to your ‘fruit from the poisoned tree’ logic — a logic I find flawed and sexist, but whatever — shouldn’t Constance Wu promote Matt Damon’s casting?

    This doesn’t even make any sense in the context of “poisoned tree” argument because your hypothetical LIE would make it that she’s promoting exactly what she practices and believes in her private life – which you find off limits and is a hypocrite for talking about!

    Constance Wu was initially upset this year over all the Haolewood racism against AFs, but somehow this case just kept perpetuating the racism and she might’ve been on auto-pilot mode.

    In any case, if Constance Wu really only wants to speak for AF issues, then leave AMs out of your racist drivel, James Lamb.

    the Asian American woman with the White significant other promotes the same pro-Asian American perspectives that most everyone else from that community would and has.

    Logic 101 fail! Speaking out AGAINST something isn’t PROMOTING something else. You’re conflating the issues and making up lies as usual!

  44. @bigWOWO,

    the liberals are usually the first ones to cast stones when one’s personal life and political message don’t match.

    Actually, I find it both sides of the fence are equally hypocrites to point fingers and “the tail wags the dog” on so many issues. It’s just a matter of what issues they’re siding with and the behavior of the other side.

    It’s more about human follies than either right or left wingnuts…

  45. Skeet the non-fact checker wrote:

    Causation is cause and effect. We’re talking about Correlation with direct consequences between the message carrier and the messenger’s actions.

    NO! This directly contradicts your statement. “Correlation” does NOT imply any consequences from one to the other.

    What you’re stating is more related to “practice what you preach” – of which your overlords Jenn Fang and lackey are total hypocrites at: censorship of others.

    I did not disparage John Cho, go fact check for yourself.

    I haven’t read the whole Reappropriate thread, because it’s a waste of time for that hogwash. But you’re agreeing with Jenn Fang on everything against John Cho and censored Byron.

    You need to check your facts!

    Constance is not talking about AMs in society, she’s talking about AMs in Haolewood and therefore has no bearing with dating whatsoever.

    Where is this about AMs? She called out the white savior complex only and nothing close to supporting AMs, but the fact she puts herself out there as “the voice” of APIA advancement in Haolewood means AMs are lumped into that category.

    Not to mention the social effects media and Haolewood propaganda implications has on the larger society…

    “character witness” is a sham excuse, unless she killed someone, her character shouldn’t be an issue just for marrying out of race. Why is a White boyfriend becomes a character issue. Would you guys still “character assassin” her if she was dating a black man?

    Isn’t this just your overlord James Lamb level of Strawman arguments and conflation of the issues?

    They have “character witness” for all sorts of things from school admissions to insurance rates. Stop your racist lies against Asians!

    Comprehension issue? Don’t you guys often cry about affirmative action admissions being lawful? To overturn that, a politician must enact/legislate another law to dismantle afirm-act.

    Are you capable of reading English at the college level? Your own statements contradict itself. Read it again for yourself that you’re self-contradictory is a hypocrite with your statement!

    It’s hypothetically speaking for the sake and convenience of arguments, also to expose you guys’ contradictions. Point is, if it was reality you guys would be jumping for joy.

    No! You’re making up lies and fantasies that have no bearing in reality! We can make up all sorts of hypotheticals and even your overlord James Lamb avoids those.

    Good, that’s all we’re asking.

    NO! You’re making up racist lies against me, an AM, for saying that the personal is political in REALITY and lumping the statements of others unto me, AN INDIVIDUAL, when your racist lies do everything you can with your Haolewood propaganda to denigrate my beliefs and existance as a human being.

    You’re the quintessential example of racist dehumanization in this neo-colonial society!

  46. I’m glad that even Constance Wu has called out the Haolewood racism and even on some levels “support” the fact that a proud sista can tell it like it is.

    Yes, and that’s why Holly Molly will fall on deaf ears once again on Asian issues, when you have a bimbo who tweets with words, that a grade school student does more effectively.

    Let’s not even talk about her relationships with White men.

  47. Why are you attacking Constance, Chr?

    Some weird dynamic is at play here.

    I think it’s your rejection complex.

  48. Why would Hollywood elites take Asians seriously? You have plenty of these stupid bimbos that speak for the Asian community and plenty of sedated males who occasionally rise to the occasion, by pointing out its racism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *