Check out Clara Shih‘s speech above. This post was originally going to be about Judy Joo, one of the judges on the Next Iron Chef, who is attractive, accomplished, Asian female, and like the vast majority of AF in the public eye, married to a guy who lacks melanin. I had a long post written from last week about how our individuals get victories, and how I’m happy for their victories, but how we never get community victories, since they all marry White. I was going to say that I was happy for them, but there was never anything for the Asian man because da’ Chinaman need not apply when it comes to love with China-women.

Related posts:

1. The “Community Store” Experience
2. Taking Back the Key
3. Secrets of the Universe/FlashForward 2

"Look at my graph, and don't blame racism, cuz racism is a thing of the past. Hmm, I wonder if I can dryclean my white shirt and white hood together.""

After years of debating and exploring “Human Biodiversity” (HBD), a.k.a. “Scientific” Racism, I thought it might be good for me to say my final word–much as I did with the Pick Up Artist debate. I’m under no illusions: I’m sure there are more words that people will share as the years go on. As long as there is an IR disparity, there will be PUA, and as long as there is racism, there will be scientific racists, so I know that this discussion will most likely continue long after this post. But it’s been some time since the HBDers have brought anything new to the table, so it’s unlikely that my views will change much on this topic in the future. It’s time to settle up.

In the following LONG blog post, you can read about my history with HBD, the full history of HBD, why there are so many Asian American male HBD proponents, and what we need to do going forward to deal with the HBD problem.

Here’s my brief history:

I first ran into scientific racism in the excellent book “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom. Bloom was not a racist, but he was a strong advocate for open-mindedness towards people with different views, and he believed it was in our best interest to listen to those who believed in unpolitically correct theories, such as scientific racism. I ran into scientific racism again with the Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. The Bell Curve wasn’t nearly as racist as people made it out–the race thing was only a small part of the book–but it was a turning point for the resurgence of the movement. Years later, I first saw the term “Human Biodiversity” years ago when I read Steve Sailer’s “Is Love Colorblind“–which pushed a common theory on why there are more AF/WM and WF/BM couples than WF/AM and BF/WM couples. I’d heard the theory before, but this was the first piece I’d seen on the web (although to be fair, it was my first time reading about the “long hair” theory which separated Asian women and black women.)

HBD is exactly the same thing as scientific racism, the key difference is the focus: HBDers push the ideas that black people will never be smart enough to run their own countries, and that while Asian people are smart, the men aren’t as “alpha” as other races. As one prominent young Asian American HBD proponent says:

I believe Asian females gravitate towards white males because of a combination of genetics and the natural laws of attraction. In a multicultural society, these two groups of individuals will come together, far more often than an Asian male with a white female. This is part of HBD [human biodiversity]. I accept it. Even with copious amounts of game, there is not much a 5-7 beta Asian can do when pitted in a fight for an Asian female with an Alpha Aryan. Hell, there’s not much he can do against a beta Jew (BTW,this is not me, I’m 6-1 and athletic). Additionally, Asian female visual-spatial IQ=white male visual-spatial IQ, another reason why the two groups are so compatible.

Of course, we’ve had our own talks about Human BioPerversity…er Biodiversity…on this site. We had an interesting podcast with an Asian American Human Bidiversisist (is that the word?), and during his time here, we had a few conversations online as well (see here and here).  I had no idea that there were so many Asian American guys who were adherents of this internet HBD movement. Outside of the expected angry White dudes who perpetuate this stuff, there is a HUGE cohort of angry Asian American men who think like the gentleman above–blacks are mentally inferior, Asians are mentally superior, and Whites are comfortably in the middle. Blacks are physically more masculine, Asians are physically more feminine, and Whites are comfortably in the middle.

The Origins of Scientific Racism

As many have pointed out, HBD is similar to Intelligent Design in that it’s an old idea repackaged with a new name. Just as Intelligent Design IS Creationism, HBD IS scientific racism. There’s no difference. Which is why I cringe every time some Asian American male HBDer starts spouting off pseudo-scientific nonsense as if it were something brand new to the world. It’s like, “Dude, that’s so 1800′s.” Actually there is a difference between racists in the 1800′s and now, but we’ll get to that later.

Racism started in Europe, and actually began within the realm of science. In The End of Racism, Dinesh D’Souza writes (p.27 of the 1995 hardcover edition):

“Although it can be found in embryonic form among the Chinese and the Arabs in the late Middle Ages, racism is a modern and Western ideology. Racism developed prior to slavery although it was later reinforced by slavery. Far from being the product of irrationality, fear and hatred, racism developed in Europe as a prodcut of Enlightenment, part of a rational and scientific project to understand the world.”

Contrary to the oft-heard-but-incorrect HBD proponents’ claim that “Intellectuals have not attempted to embrace the idea of HBD,” intellectuals started “HBD.” Only it wasn’t called HBD back then, and most of them were simply playing with ideas which were not part of their main body of work. D’Souza later goes on to discuss how many scientists and scientific racists back then were the same people. Some of them were among

“…the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment. Hume, Voltire, Montesquieu, Kant, and Hegel were among the many who entertained racist views, although these did not make up the main part of their philosophy.” (p.62-63)

Gobineau was the writer who most accurately expressed European racism with his book “The Inequality of Human Races.” From there we see that many intellectuals of that age began measuring heads and doing other “scientific” things to rate the races. Intellectuals did in fact embrace HBD–it just so happens that they ended up rejecting after generations of examination.

Is It True?

Now you will hear many times how scientific racists say that we don’t know that the races are equal. You’ll often hear the strawman argument of:

“Well, if we tested people across different populations, I really doubt you’d get equal results! You’re just afraid to test!”

Indeed, it’s impossible to test across different populations fairly, as one would have to compare populations of equal wealth, education, etc. But even if it were possible…few people think that the results would be equal. If I compared population heights, vertical jumps, IQ, bowling scores, head sizes, or whatever, it’s highly unlikely that I’d get the exact same results. It’s a strawman.

Another common diversionary tactic is the assertion that IQ is genetic:

“Look at these twins studies. IQ is heritable!”

Well…hardly anyone is arguing with that. Some may claim that IQ is totally not heritable, but most people accept that there is at least some genetic component to intelligence. I don’t know of many people making the argument that intelligence is 100% environmental. More likely it’s a combination of environment and genetics.

The real question is whether these tiny differences mean anything. If my IQ is 125 and yours is 123, does that mean I’m gunning for success and you’re doomed to failure? What if I come from a poor family and had no school…if I have an IQ of 90 as a result of malnutrition, is it fair to say that it’s genetic? Also, the skills that are important for survival change from one generation to the next. They change depending on where you live. The ability to have strong gaman and to take nonsense is great if you’re a Japanese or American government bureaucrat, but it’ll tank your career if you’re an American or Chinese entrepreneur, or it could get you killed if you’re a Chinese entrepreneur against the Communist party. Populations and power also swing from one period to another–at one time Europeans looked up to Arabs as men of learning, and Europe has only be ascendant for the last 500 years or so–before that, the Chinese dominated in technology and culture.

It’s especially hard to get an unbiased view these days with the mass media. The mass media tells our stories. As Noam Chomsky wrote, it “manufactures consent.” As any political strategist will tell you, you can change the world with 30 second commercials and sound bites. With the influence of Hollywood, even intellectuals fall under the sway of the mass media. It’s easy for the media to get persuade people that dumb black men and weak Asian men are the norm, that it’s somehow genetic.

We can’t prove the nonexistence of genetic limits, but given the existence of the media and culture surrounding the decisions of those studying HBD and our population, it’s hard to deny the effect of culture. There is more evidence that indicates that we are limited more by a toxic past and present culture than by genetics.

For example, we know that IQ is malleable–people can study for such tests. As the one HBD proponent acknowledged (and actually told us) in our podcast, the IQ gap between Whites and Blacks has in fact narrowed over time. We know that perceptions of masculinity and beauty change over time–there have been times in the past when fat women were glorified, whereas many (but not all!) men now prefer thin.

Just look at how the races have grown closer in the last 200 years. In 1811, was it even feasible that there would be a black man who could be editor of the Harvard Law Review and then become President? Was it feasible that the 2012 ticket might see this man run against another black man, a former CEO of a huge pizza chain? We’ve narrowed the gap.

Furthermore, we know that belief is a reflexive property. Sports psychologists will tell you that believing you can succeed can often create success. People who believe they are less capable may fail because of that belief. As of yet, no one has successfully used science to prescribe the limits of race. There have been great Asian athletes such as Liu Xiang and Manny Pacquiao, and there have been great black intellectuals like Thomas Sowell and Claude Steele. There has so far been NO indication that most black people cannot succeed in school, or that most Asian people cannot train to be decent athletes, or that they cannot be on par with one another.  Liu Xiang is a perfect example. Who would’ve thought that the top hurdler in the world would be a Chinese man?

It’s easier to believe in limits because it’s a lazier way of thinking. It’s easier to believe that stereotypes are true, and that the future will always be the same as the past. But history proves change can happen. My MacBook didn’t exist before Steve Jobs and Apple created it, and the U.S. didn’t exist before people decided that they would make it exist. Slavery had never been abolished before countries abolished it. No one was able to run a four minute mile before Roger Bannister broke the four minute mark, and now ALL elite middle-distance runners can break it. No one punched like Tyson before Tyson. It takes imagination and hard work for any change. If you lack either imagination or the ability to work hard, it’s easier to believe in a retroactive system like HBD.

Most teachers who teach in Africa believe in the African people. They’ve been there. Anyone who goes to Asia can see that despite the fact that Asians still suffer from a cultural inferiority complex, Asian women in Asia still like and often prefer Asian men, rejecting the trajectory of the Asian Female Celebrity Club. It will take imagination and hard work to raise the test scores of African Americans. It will take imagination and hard work to raise the cultural/masculine capital of Asian men. Just because it didn’t exist before doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

Why So Many Asian American Male HBD Proponents?

It’s somewhat unbelievable, given the information that I just presented above, that there are so many Asian American men who believe in HBD. We’ve seen historically how better living conditions yields better opportunities for everyone, we’ve seen things change drastically for black people between the 1800s and now. The gap hasn’t closed, of course, but the path of history has yielded enormous gains for all minorities, relative to where we were before. Accepting HBD requires a renunciation of equality, an acceptance of the status quo where White people lead and minorities follow. So why do so many Asian American men, despite all evidence that contradicts the hierarchical racial theories, accept scientific racism?

My theory is that that the AM acceptance of HBD is a form of little man complex. Admittedly, we’ve been crushed in the whole IR marketplace–an Asian dude has to make $24k more than a White dude to be viewed as equally attractive among Asian women. The AFCC and the American media have beaten us worse than those cops beat Rodney King. Because it’s easier to get stuck in the past, a lot of Asian men live neither in the present nor see the future. Many of our Asian brothers are therefore seeking to boost their self-esteem by focusing on what even White racists will acknowledge–that we’re smart. It’s much easier to roll with the punches–“You say my race is smart but feminine? Fine, I agree! (Except for me, since I’m 6’1 and athletic and deserve to be the superintendent of minorities.).” It’s easier to think retroactively than to see possibility. It’s a lazy man’s way of thinking, a defensive way of thinking, and with the power of the Ku Klux Klan and White supremacist institutionalized racism behind them, these HBD supporting Asian men think they can win. They don’t realize that they’re being used. They don’t realize that they’re capable of much more than what White racists have defined as Asian limitations.

Think about it–have any of you ever met an Asian guy with a high emotional EQ, who expresses himself freely, who has an entrepreneurial mind, and who also believes that groups of people face limits because of their race? No. Most HBD people hide behind the anonymous internet, scared of the light of day.

Indeed, no one ever got ahead by believing in limitations. We’ve seen limits crushed throughout time. And in almost all cases, these limits usually get knocked down by people who didn’t believe in them. Believing in racial limitations is a lazy man’s way of thinking. Believing in HBD makes you a worse person. We’ve seen the Asian American HBD believers on this site. They have little faith in humans, little in the way of dreams, and little in the way of proactive creative thinking. They’re victims of emotion. And unless they push themselves to think outside of a box created by 19th century racist European guys, they’ll be stuck there forever.

For Asian American men, it’s especially important that we see possibility. There are a lot of areas where we can improve–the arts, politics, dealing with the Asian American Female Celebrity Club--and we’re not going to get there if we’re mentally stuck in the past. We also won’t get there if we’re not open to learning from the world, if we let our little man insecurities get in the way of our developing intelligence.

We’ve been co-opted by racists. If you look at history, it’s a classic strategy of appointing a house slave to oversee and keep the rest of the minorities in check. The racists find vulnerable high-IQ Asian men to be their stooges, convincing them to deny the effect of institutional racism and mass media on our minority populations, convincing them that sexual equality is out of their reach, ascribing their failures in life to genes rather than circumstance. The irony is that these racist ideas have been within the culture for the last 200 years, and minorities as a whole have improved a lot since then, far past the limits that the enlightened racists of the nineteenth century ascribed to us.

Then and Now

In closing, there is a difference between racists of the 19th century and racists today. Racists of the 19th century never had the opportunity to see what we know today–that education and media could change the world for people of all races. There is no evidence that people have genetic limitations. Most people who believe in limitations do have limitations–for themselves.

There is perversity in Human Biodiversity–it kills the soul and cuts off a proponent’s ability to think. Already we’ve seen the low EQ and desperation morals of some of their proponents. With a full historical perspective, it’s impossible to say that one group has limitations while another doesn’t. People who don’t believe in limitations are often those who defeat limitations. To prepare ourselves to defeat limitations–both for ourselves personally and for those who we lead and inspire–it’s important that we cast aside the fictions of the racist past. Scientific racism has no basis in fact, no basis in reason. While it’s fine for people to explore scientific racism, as Allan Bloom recommended, it’s equally important that we keep our eyes on the future rather than getting mired in ideas of the past.

Now let’s put this topic to rest.

Related posts:

1. Asian Racism and the “Asian of Reason”
2. Podcast with AOR, King, and Alpha on Eugenics, HBD, and Racism
3. The Default Human Being

A few weekends ago I went to a kids’ birthday party. I was sitting across from an Iranian American couple who had immigrated years ago and now had prestigious jobs, a beautiful 4-year-old daughter, and a great family life. You’re not supposed to talk politics or religion, but I felt like talking politics, so I told them about a time that I once accidentally wandered into a pro-Iran political group in the U.S. Iranians, the group had said, were just like Americans–the people had jobs, listened to music, and were just like you and me.

“That’s correct,” the man said, “in the big cities. The outer villages are still really poor, but yes, the big city people are just like you and me.”

“Iranians in general love the West,” said the woman. “We’re not too crazy about the government we have, but we’re stuck with it.”

It occurred to me then and there that there are some general rules about people that are “universally” true with regards to how they want to live, regardless of who they are or what culture that they’re a part of (I’ll explain the quotes in just a minute). I remember reading as a child that in ALL cultures, a smile indicates happiness–there are no cultures that frown to indicate that they’re happy or laugh when they feel really sad. People prefer peace to war. They love being in love. They all have aspirations to live with honor and dignity, which in all cultures is similarly defined. Certainly there are differing minor differences–your chances of getting ripped off by a business are higher in some countries than others, depending on the trust that naturally exists in that culture. And there are industry-specific codes of ethics. But in general people want the exact same thing. There is no major religion or culture that preaches “thou shalt kill” or “thou shalt dishonor thy father and mother.” It doesn’t matter if you’re Chinese, European, African, or Middle Eastern. All of us try to practice “Universal” Morality. We’re all bound by similar morals, goals, and codes of honor.

Now there are obviously some “cultures” that don’t practice this. Look at the Muslim fundamentalists who crashed the planes into the World Trade Tower. Look at the Christian fundamentalists who blew up abortion clinics and murdered doctors during the 80′s. Even in less murderous cases, we have Pick Up Artist/Human Biodiversity (HBD) fundamentalists who harass women or minorities. Obviously not everyone subscribes to “universal” morals.

But if you notice, people who don’t share the same kind of “universal” morality are usually those who see themselves as desperate or unheard; they believe that the low road is the only way for them to win. They don’t believe they can win otherwise. Honor and decency become less meaningful–these people look at life with only the end goal in mind. These people subscribe to “desperation morality.” A lot of this is in their heads. Muslims certainly have a lot of international adherents; mainstream Muslims know this, and they don’t bomb innocent women and kids. Christians certainly have enough clout in the U.S. without them having to resort to killing doctors and bombing clinics. PUAs have male privilege that gives them an advantage in almost everything they do in their dealings with women, and HBD Evangelists–there certainly isn’t a shortage of people in this country who believe that Blacks are mentally inferior and Asians are physically inferior!

I’m usually a big supporter of underdogs, but when it comes to morality, we ought to take the higher road. If what we’re looking for is universal love and understanding, we can find it in the universal code of morality that humans across all cultures share.

(pic from here)

Related posts:

1. Universal Humans and the Privilege of Whiteness
2. Sports and Morality
3. Morality

1. Life is as much of an art as a science. Check out Jon Fitch.  He’s beaten just about everyone but the champion and BJ Penn in his division, but he’ll most likely never get a shot at the title again.  Dana White, after the Fitch-Penn fight, said:

“Fitch is one of these guys that goes, ‘Oh, I want my respect,’” White said. “He just fought a 155-pound guy and went to a draw with him, and in my opinion, he lost the first two rounds—and he’s crying for a title shot?”

He concluded by saying, “You’ve got to get in there and decisively beat people. You have to have fans clamoring for you to fight for the title.”

Fitch wins and wins often, but he just looks ugly when he does it.  Fitch doesn’t win by knockout or submission.  Ever.  And people hate him for that.  It’s not enough for creative class people to just get by.  You have to do something that looks good, something creative.

2. Innovation is key. Dana White is considering firing Roy “Big Country” Nelson (pictured above) after his terrible performance against Frank Mir at Saturday’s UFC 130. If you look at it in purely practical terms, it makes no sense–he’s only lost twice, both times to top contenders (Dos Santos and Mir), and just one fight ago he was in a title eliminator match.  Before that, he was knocking out some pretty big dudes. He’s still arguably one of the best.

BUT in creative terms, he’s failing. He didn’t bring anything new to the table at this fight, and he didn’t look like he had improved in any area of his fighting abilities.  That in itself means that he’s not entertaining people and not getting creative, which means he’s on the chopping block.

Contrast him with Machida, who had done relatively miserably in his three appearances prior to his last.  One creative crane kick resurrected his entire career.  He’s in line for the title shot once again, and deservedly so.

3. What you say is sometimes as important as what you do. This goes back to the discussion we had about entitlement, along with the lessons from Annette Lareau’s Unequal Childhoods.  Check out Chael Sonnen, Yushin Okami, and Jon Fitch (see #1 above). Sure, Chael beat Okami, but they pretty much all fight the same way–they lay on top of an opponent, throw baby punches, and wait for the clock to run out.  However, the big difference is what comes out of their mouths.  The reason Chael-fans like Chael is because he’s the second best trash talker out there (sorry, as usual Chael comes in second place–Rampage still has him beat.).  Chael conveys a sense of entitlement when he talks, whether it’s trash talk about his opponent, excuses about his steroid use, or random insults against people like Lance Armstrong.  People like his words, and so he gets great fights.

Jon Fitch doesn’t trash talk as well, and he doesn’t participate in the creative side of verbal promotion, so while he won’t get cut from the promotion–his record is too good–he won’t get ahead.  Yushin Okami doesn’t trash talk, mostly because he doesn’t speak English, which is another rule of the American Creative Class–non-Native speakers have to learn English to really get ahead.  Yushin Okami will get his title shot, but if he messes this one up, unlike the English-speaking trash-talking Chael Sonnen, he’ll get shoved back to the bottom of the heap.

4. Act like a professional. See Paul Daley, who punched his opponent after the fight because he lost his temper, and is now banned from the UFC, even though the UFC owns Strikeforce, where he fights.  It doesn’t matter how exciting a fighter you are, you still have to act like a professional and follow certain rules.

5. Institutions help make individuals. This is the lesson that no one likes to hear, but it’s true–without big, successful organizations like the UFC, you don’t have MMA.  First the Extreme Fighting Championships went down, then Pride FC, then WEC, then Strikeforce.  There were a bunch of others, and the UFC kept buying them.  The UFC is the only powerful MMA org left; even in Japan, Dream is having trouble paying its fighters.  How does the UFC manage to keep growing in this terrible economic environment?  They pay their fighters squat.  It’s terrible for the fighters, who most certainly have higher overhead and more injuries than most athletes, but it keeps the institution going, and therefore it keeps MMA alive.

The lesson is that there needs to be a platform or institution. Without the platform, it’s hard for individuals to shine in any field.

Related posts:

1. Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida (Review)
2. Nam Phan on the Ultimate Fighter
3. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life by Annette Lareau (Review)

Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan

(I don’t know if Michael Roth is Jewish. I assume he is, but even if he isn’t, it’s not relevant, since I’m mostly working off Steven Silbiger’s book.)

There was an excellent article on CNN.com today: Why Liberal Arts Matter.  It’s written by Michael Roth.  In the article, Roth makes an argument for the liberal arts.  He writes:

Many seem to think that by narrowing our focus to just science and engineering, we will become more competitive. This is a serious mistake.

Our leaders in government, industry and academia should realize that they don’t have to make a choice between the sciences and the rest of the liberal arts. Indeed, the sciences are a vital part of the liberal arts.

The key to our success in the future will be an integrative education that doesn’t isolate the sciences from other parts of the curriculum, and that doesn’t shield the so-called creative and interpretive fields from a vigorous understanding of the problems addressed by scientists.

His argument is that the liberal arts matter, and that narrow training does not fully develop one’s capacities for change or growth.  He writes:

We should look at education not as a specific training program for a limited range of mental muscles but as a process through which one will generate some of the most important features in one’s life. It makes no sense to train people as narrowly as possible in a world going through cataclysmic changes, for you are building specific strengths that leave you merely muscle-bound, not stronger and more flexible.

We should think of education as a kind of intellectual cross-training that leads to many more things than at any one moment you could possibly know would be useful. The most powerful education generates further curiosity, new needs, experiences to meet those needs, more curiosity and so on.

I agree with Michael Roth about the humanities. I agree with him 100%. Mental flexibility, interpretation, and the expanse of new ideas has always benefited our greatest entrepreneurs and creative thinkers in this society. I used to believe that we had to stress the sciences more, but I’m beginning to see that well rounded individuals are the future of America. The purpose of an education shouldn’t be to simply get a job, but to be able to conceptualize and understand the world in order to create new and better jobs.  In other words, an education should teach a person how to be a leader.

We’ve talked a little about Jewish parenting vs. Asian Tiger Parenting, since Amy Chua, the original Tiger Mother, is married to a Jewish guy.  In my post about the Tiger Mother, I mentioned that I found it somewhat ironic that Chua was espousing Chinese parenting over the parenting style of her Jewish American husband, especially given the fact that Jews have been much more successful in the United States than the Chinese. I have never, ever heard a Jewish person dog the humanities the way some Chinese people do.  In The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People, author Steven Silbiger has an entire chapter devoted to knowledge, another chapter devoted to individuality and creativity, and another devoted to “verbal confidence.”  In other words, three of the “seven keys” are humanities-type skills.

I won’t expand too much on this topic, but here’s a quote from Silbiger’s book, linking the humanities directly to the Jewish religion (not “faith,” as Silbiger points out, since the non-Orthodox Jews are NOT required to accept God on faith):

The Jewish religion focuses on the individual and his or her own spiritual exploration and journey.  It is therefore important that Jews are involved in spirited discussions and debate about the various stories and laws in their religious texts as a means of forming a personal and intellectual attachment to their religion. (p.27)

I think there is something to be learned here.  As ChineseMom and I discussed in our podcast, modern Chinese culture seems to discount the humanities.  If history is any indication of the past, we do so at our peril.  People will need to learn to create, and well-rounded individuals will be much better prepared to create and innovate than those who avoid the humanities in search of a more narrow focus.

Edit: See Eurasian Sensation’s take here.

Related posts:

1. Raising my Asian kids Jewish
2. Podcast with ChineseMom on American culture, education, and raising kids
3. Conditional Parenting

As some of you long-timers may recall, I once inadvertantly misled you.  What happened was that a young Asian American man in Portland got into an altercation with a group of White boys, and he was angry, so he called the police and falsely reported a hate crime.  It hit the news, and I, along with most of the blogosphere, reported it.  But by the time the young man felt guilty and somewhat fessed up, lots of people had already taken action.  A friend of mine served on the board of a large Asian American activist organization at the time, and he used the organization to perpetuate the lie, even though he knew it was a lie.  When I confronted him about it, he accused me of being a traitor to the cause and not supporting Asian Americans.   He made the argument–a utilitarian argument–that even though this incident may never have happened, it could prevent a future hate crime from happening even if they weren’t happening in the first place although he suspected they were in fact happening even if no real victim had yet come forward.  The people of Portland had a huge rally for a crime that never took place, and lots of powerful people got behind a movement based on a fabrication.  Against opposition, I pulled Thymos out, I retracted my own reporting of the incident on bigWOWO, my friend and I had a big public argument (that spilled onto this site for a while!), and then we just left it at that. We’re still friends; we just don’t do activist projects together anymore (which is probably fine, since the kids keep me too busy anyway!).  Now we just occasionally hang out, shoot the breeze, and laugh at stuff, which is probably what most middle-aged people do anyway.

For the longest time, I was trying to understand why I found the mass public lie so distasteful.  For the longest time, I thought it had something to do with masculinity and masculine strategies, which I posted about both here (where I talk strategies) and here (where I link it to PUA).  I thought it had something to do with substance vs. perception.  Why don’t we just say it as it is?  Why can’t we have the courage to do what’s right?

But it’s not about courage or masculinity–related, but not 100%.  It’s more about honor.  Manning Marable set me straight yesterday in a story about Malcolm X where Malcolm has reservations about serving in the U.S. army.  In his draft board meeting, instead of saying why he’s opposed to fighting in the war, he conks out his hair and acts crazy, telling the recruiting officer that he wants to kill “crackers.”  They let him off because they thought he might be insane.  Marable comes down on him:

Malcolm had learned well how to pay the role of the clown or buffoon, but this pose was beginning to come up against his slowly forming new political attitude.  Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.’s leadership during these years had deeply impressed him, reminding him of the more positive heritage of active engagement once practiced by his parents.  What made Earl Little and Powell different from Detroit Red, or other tricksters, was their sense of responsibility to others within their community, and to African Americans generally.  The trickster or hustler “getting over” was the ultimate opportunist who would use others to ahieve his own ends.  Malcolm would soon have to choose which model of black masculinity he would claim. (p. 60)

In actuality, if you think about it, lying is usually bolder and more “courageous” than telling the truth.  Lying creates a greater risk for one’s reputation, while telling the truth is “playing it safe.”  Lying often creates bigger returns–it’s a faster way to get ahead.  Actively stepping forward and creating or repeating a lie is a masculine action, although it may not be considered manly.  But in the end, the decision to lie or not lie is about honor and how we choose to live our lives, regardless of whether it gets us ahead.  Here’s a quote:

Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.  There are too many people who think that the only thing that’s right is to get by, and the only thing that’s wrong is to get caught.  ~J.C. Watts

Here’s another:

Reputation is character minus what you’ve been caught doing.  ~Michael Iapoce, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Boardroom

I don’t know how much honor means to most people anymore, but I believe it’s an important part of character.  Aside from “sincerity,” it’s probably the word I would most closely link with Malcolm X.

(pic from here)

No related posts.

Welcome to the longest post in the history of bigWOWO.  The Post Teaser plugin has been activated.

We’ve been having a long discussion on Asian American masculinity on those other two blog posts (1 and 2). We originally began talking about masculinity in order to understand emasculation and how it relates to interracial dating, but in the course of the discussion, we realized that masculinity and manliness are not the same thing. Masculinity is a frame of mind characterized by fast aggressive action, a yang frame of mind. It’s a self-contained description. Manliness, on the other hand, combines yin and yang, feminine and masculine, to embody what society thinks a man should be. Becoming a man is a rite of passage where the values depend entirely on the culture in which one lives.

When we talk about emasculation, we could be talking about either masculinity or manliness, but we’re usually talking about manliness.  We’re usually talking about how Asian men are not treated as men, or we’re talking about how Asian men are not acting like men.  Emasculation means to strip a man of manliness. Our question as Asian American men is how to become men.

I got my first lesson on how to be a man from my grandmother. When I was 10 or 11 years old, I went to a Bar Mitzvah, where a Jewish American family friend celebrated his becoming a man (We’ll call him Jon–not because I’m trying to conceal his identity, but because I don’t remember his name!). It was the first Bar Mitzvah I had ever attended, and I was amazed by the expense and preparation behind this young man’s celebration. There were lots of young people at the party, but there were only two Asian people in the whole place–me and a young Chinese girl who was one of Jon’s classmates. She was at my table.  I couldn’t take my eyes off of her.

This girl, Helen (again, I don’t remember her name either, so I’ll just call her Helen) was cute, stylish, intelligent, and…really cute…and did I mention she was really cute?  I was a boring child, but I must have spoken to her because I remember her smiling.  When it was time to dance, she asked me if I wanted to dance with her, and so we did. I remember her laughing too, so I’m hoping that means I cracked some kind of funny joke or something.

Anyway, my grandmother later asked me about the Bar Mitzvah, and I told her how they recited prayers, how everyone kissed a big gold goblet that they passed around the synagogue, and how they had music, like a wedding. I told her about dancing with the Chinese girl, and she said, “Oh, you asked her to dance with you?” I said, “Uh, no. She asked.”

My grandmother said, “You are the man. You are supposed to ask.” 

My grandmother, of course, had grown up during the Great Depression and World War II back when gender roles were much more fixed. She was the wife of an engineer in the Merchant Marine, a man who had fought in three wars. Even back in the fourth or fifth grade, I learned that men and women were supposed to be equal.  I thought that maybe the idea of men having to ask was old and antiquated advice from the pre-feminist years, but I didn’t say anything because when my grandmother talks, I listen. I assumed she was simply from another generation and didn’t know about feminism and equal rights and all that other stuff.

But years later, having lived through three and a half decades, I see that my grandmother was right. Regardless of whether we believe men and women are equal, and regardless of how the gender lines break down in order to allow women to succeed in traditionally male jobs, society has certain expectations of men and our roles. Initiating contact with the opposite sex is one of our responsibilities. Finding a career and making it work is another. Exposing oneself to danger when duty calls in another.  A man must “act like a man.”

Is this a societal thing or a natural thing? Well, it might be natural, but it’s definitely societal. Like it or not, society puts an expectation on men to be men according to society’s definition of men. If we don’t measure up to that standard, society deems us “unmanly.”

So what is American manliness? Here are a few blog posts:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/how-to-be-a-man/
http://www.esquire.com/features/what-is-a-man-0509

I agree with both blog posts. Tom Chiarella says that real men are good at their jobs–not their careers or hobbies, but their jobs. Steve Pavlina says that real men honor the masculinity of other men–you don’t jump in to help a man lifting a heavy weight at the gym because you respect that he’s lifting that weight as part of his “growth experience.”  I also like Pavlina’s remark that relationships come second.  People tend to respect the manliness of those who sacrifice everything, including family and loved ones, for a cause, a job, or a vision.  I once read that Coretta Scott King once got angry at Martin Luther King for spending all his money on promoting equal rights rather than saving money for his kids’ college tuition.  People respected Martin for putting all his energy into his cause.

Now what about Asian Americans and how we fit in?  Here’s a post about Asian manliness that I found here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2200544/entry/2200547

For a cultural perspective, Tim Wu writes:

Since we’re talking about cowboys, I can’t close this entry without tackling a somewhat sensitive topic: Asian manhood. There is a widely held stereotype that, samurais and Bruce Lee aside, East Asian men are not particularly masculine. I hate to admit it, but as with many stereotypes, there’s some truth to this. Take my native Taiwan: Good food? Yes. Friendly? Yes. Macho? Not at all. Many Taiwanese men consider it perfectly normal to fill their cars with stuffed animals. More broadly, male pop stars across East Asia have a disturbing tendency to look exactly like the teenage girls who are their biggest fans.

Please don’t get angry about this. It’s true that Western popular culture tends to emasculate Asian men. I am also aware that cultural ideals of manhood vary, and that Taiwanese men are more likely to express their masculinity in other ways, like collecting tea pots or chewing on betel nuts. But rough and tough they aren’t. And some of this gives Asian men outside Asia something of a complex.

The antidote to any idea that this might be a racial, as opposed to cultural, trait is a trip to Mongolia. Mongolian men in the countryside spend their time riding horses, killing animals, and breaking firewood. They tend to hold their face in a fixed grimace. At times, it is like a country of Daniel Craig impersonators. Along with parts of Latin America, it’s probably the most macho place I’ve ever been. And so, my Asian brothers, if you ever want to know what the extremes of Eastern manhood look like, forget about Jet Li or even Bruce Lee. It’s Mongolia where Asia gets tough.

I’ve not spent enough time in Asia to talk about what makes a manly Asian man.  Asian men in the Western world will be judged by White Western standards of manliness, a manliness that perhaps (and I use the word “perhaps” because I really don’t know) tends to be more masculine, except maybe when compared with cultures like Mongolia.  The masculine features of manliness are even stronger in Latin American and African American cultures.  We see this judgment of manliness in interracial relationships, where Asian women often won’t date Asian men because of a lack of perceived manliness, and in the workplace, where people don’t perceive Asian Americans as great leaders.

The choice for the Asian American activist is straight forward.  We can choose to redefine American masculinity, or we can choose to assimilate to it.  My guess is that most Asian Americans would prefer a little of both–to become men on our own terms while trying to achieve a Western ideal at the same time. 

So how do we do that?

1. I think we need to raise our boys to become men.  We need to raise them with ideals, structure, and community, and we need to teach them to strive for those ideals and to do what is best for community.

2. We need to build up yang power.  Teach them to state their positions straight out, to be “brave, truthful, and good” as Michael Gurian says.

3. We need to build up yin power.  We need to teach them to empathize, to feel, and to be in touch with their emotions as men.

4. We need to teach them to be a part of their smaller Asian community AND their larger community as a whole.  This means that more Asian men need active leadership roles in the existing structures and institutions.

5. We need to embrace competition and have greater trust that the system can do the right thing.

What do you think?  Sound off like a WOWO!

Related posts:

1. Asian American Masculinity
2. The Asian Female Celebrity Club (AFCC) Embargo
3. The Post-PUA Era of the Asian American Blogosphere

Thanks, JS, for facebooking this (ironic it came from fb!).  A recent article in the New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell stated that contrary to popular opinion, social revolutions cannot be started by social media.  Ari Melber from the Nation somewhat argues against Gladwell in his piece Gladwell Gets It Wrong on Social Media.  I say “somewhat” because they are working with different non-mutually exclusive premises–Gladwell’s thesis is that the importance of social media is overstated when it comes to activism, while Melber’s thesis is that “the web and networked communications open up new and effective ways for citizens to converse and organize each other in repressive societies.”  Gladwell believes that “strong bonds” are important for real social activism, and that platforms like Facebook and Twitter build “weak bonds.”  Melber argues that these platforms provide communication that helps activism.

I’ve been an activist at points in my life.  I never did anything that entails nearly the risk that the sit-in organizers or the protesters in Egypt face, but I’ve been out there.  I think both Gladwell and Melber are correct, but if I had to choose which thesis is more relevant to what activists need to hear, I’d lean towards Gladwell.

Here’s why:

Melber is correct in stating that the web facilitates relationships.  You can now e-mail entire books to people, and knowledge moves a lot faster than in the past.  The speed and structure of the internet is such that it is very difficult to stop it, and it almost renders book burning and other forms of intellectual suppression useless.

However, most big social movements take big, bold, risky moves, and as Gladwell points out, most people won’t take risk unless they have a good friend or colleague standing next to them.  In theory, one could tweet or send out a Facebook message, and everyone would show up and topple a government.  In practice, it doesn’t work that way.  In my own activism, I’ve found that Facebook is a great way to get people to show up for a party or a fundraiser, or to give a few bucks for a cause, or to create a petition.  It’s great for educating people, as (I hope) this blog does.

But there are a number of disadvantages with web-only or even web-mostly activist endeavors.  First, it’s hard to get people to take risks with a mass electronic message.  People who aren’t involved in face-to-face meetings typically won’t take risks, won’t make big statements, and won’t think deeply about issues behind their activism.

Second, people don’t get emotionally involved with the issues behind the activism.  They are separated from the action by a screen, and therefore don’t feel the issues on a visceral level.

Third, as Gladwell covers in depth, there isn’t a hierarchy.  This is perhaps the most important problem with web-mostly activism.  A web activist is basically stuck with group-think, which is not always the smartest kind of activism.  Such activism can only do two things–disrupt or perpetuate the status quo; it can’t replace the status quo with something better.  I’ve had many activist endeavors, and I’ve found that many activists practice bad unethical behavior or act in ways that hurt a movement.  They usually get away with it until someone with rank steps in and sets them straight.  This is why Dr. King required that every marcher under his command be screened.  He only wanted marchers who could keep their promise of nonviolence.  Only a hierarchy, with its power to fire someone, can stop unethical or bad behavior.

People are going to bring up Egypt as an example of a web protest.  I would bet a lot of money that the tweets, if useful, were only useful in coordinating.  Most of these people who are risking their lives probably met many times with people of similar mindsets, , and they know the reasons they are protesting because of their ties with these people, not because someone tweeted and told them to show up for the party.  In other words, the protests in Egypt would have happened with or without Facebook and Twitter.

Related posts:

1. Ashley Judd Graduates from Harvard with MPA to Help her Activism
2. Podcast: Anna and Larry and Asian Activism
3. Active Web Activism: Militant and Alpha-Asian

In the YA Literature thread, King, Kobukson and I had an interesting discussion with Oriental Right, formerly known as Asian of Reason.  Some of you remember AOR–he is a “human biodiversity” proponent from Johns Hopkins who believes that black people on average are not as intelligent as White people, and Asian men aren’t as masculine as White men.  With all due credit to him, he defended these views in a podcast with me, Alpha, and King (who is black), which we recorded here: Podcast.  Although everyone disagreed with his views and the logical leaps he took to stand behind his beliefs, people respected him for having the courage to step up.

In the YA lit discussion, he wrote about reading Kazuo Ishiguro, and how he felt that Ishiguro’s books in which the characters are White are better than those in which they are Asian.  He mentioned Never Let Me Go, and said:

His best books, Remains of the Day and Never Let Me Go, are not about Asians, they are about white people–more concisely, they are about people and the universal human doubts and concerns.

Here’s the kicker: the characters in NLMG were never described as White. Never.  They didn’t even have last names that were “White.”  The fact that AOR assumed they were White indicates that in his mind, the default human being is White.  This, of course, makes it easier for White characters to grab hold of readers–ethnic characters are tied to ethnicity, while White characters get to be all about “universal human doubts and concerns.”  Being a Universal Human is a right that only White characters seem to have.

When I asked Oriental Right why he assumed they were White, he stepped back by saying that they could be Asian, that he wasn’t even thinking race, and that the point was that the characters didn’t focus on ethnicity.  I asked him why he specifically said that they were White and NOT Asian if he wasn’t thinking race, and well, that question didn’t get answered except to say that we had ideas about a “white power structure,” which he put in quotes.

Human Biodiversity (HBD)–a.k.a. racism–is a religion–that is, it defies all logical and rational explanation, and proponents have to suspend disbelief in order to believe it.  Whereas Christianity offers everlasting life, HBD offers a feeling of superiority for White people and Asian people who think they are better than the rest of us.

There are two points I want to make in this thread, one about the nature of dialogue, and the other about literature:

1. Dialogue should be about learning.  As Jigoro Kano said, “Mutual benefit and welfare.”  I can respect religions–most of them anyway–but religious adherents need to turn on the logic when talking to those of us who don’t worship the same god.  When logic and religion collide, I believe that logic should get priority.  If it’s shown that there’s a contradiction in your thinking, acknowledging it helps the thinker.  Unlike religious proselytizing, it’s not about winning or losing.

2. Ethnic characters have a higher burden of proof BECAUSE the default human being in America is White. Ethnic characters need to prove that they are above ethnicity and are universal.  It places an extra burden on racial minorities to have their voices heard, even among readers who happen to be of the same race.  I’m not saying that this is based on intentional racism; I’m just saying that this is the way it is, which Oriental Right’s assumption indicates.

(Oriental Right, to be fair, I mentioned HBD in this post, so the blog policy with respect to obtrusive and unsubstantiated comments is turned off on this blog post.  If you want to share your HBD religion here or seek converts, please feel free below.  I don’t suggest it though–you can cling harder to this religion, or you can let it drop.  I think you’re beginning to realize the flaws in this thinking.  I suggest you let the breakdown take place–if you allow the structure of racism to self-implode, you may be surprised to find the greatness of the person that lives inside of you.  Trust me on this one.  Pic from here.  Peace.)

Related posts:

1. More Annoying White Privilege from the Extremely Powerful

There’s an interesting discussion among readers under the Siow post. And it carried over to the Alpha Asian blog.  The Asian Playboy, who started the ABCs of Attraction school of Pick Up Artists, made me laugh by writing this on Alpha Asian’s blog (welcome back, by the way, Alpha!):

It becomes a crab in the barrel syndrome. Instead of supporting an Asian brother trying to make it big in Hollywood, music, or whathaveyou, people are more likely to try to tear you down because what they see in you is what they dislike about themselves.

It’s ironic because our very first bigWOWO podcast addressed the exact same issue of “crabs in a bucket,” with one of APB’s “dating” coaches, the Better Asian Man.

The best way to explain criticism is to talk about the two kinds of criticism that I–and everyone else–tends to engage in.  There are only two kinds.

1. Ethics, Morality, and Tackiness.  In the case of ethics, morality and tackiness, we sometimes criticize people’s actions.  I’ve criticized S.B. Woo’s 80-20 PAC, as well as the Asian Playboy‘s attempts to teach men to coerce unwilling women into sex, as well as the sexual harassment that some of the Asian Playboy’s instructors have engaged in.  I make no apologies for speaking out against bad behavior, and neither should you.  If you see someone doing something unethical or immoral or disgusting that hurts others, good people need to speak out.  In the case of ethics, it’s not about who’s supporting whom; it’s about speaking out against bad or unethical behavior.  People who criticize others for blatant unethical, immoral, or tacky behavior aren’t trying to stop crabs from leaving the bucket, they’re trying to stop certain crabs from raping (literally in some cases) or exploiting other crabs.  So the Asian Playboy, if he’s speaking in relation to his own experiences of being “torn down,” is way off. Instead of saying that Asian Americans are like crabs in a bucket, he should shut down his company, reject his former actions, join us, and speak out against his old cronies who harass, coerce, and mistreat women, and who lie to other men.  He should also change his name from Asian Playboy to Asian Rabid Feminist.  Instead of APB, he’d be ARF.

Now there is another category of criticism where the accusation holds a bit more water:

2. Product.  Most magazines and newspapers do some kind of review where someone writes something about why they like or dislike something.  What ZDNet does for computers, what Michiko Kakutani does for books, and what Roger Ebert does for movies, bigWOWO tries to do for Asian American art and literature (I’m not a professional, obviously, so I can’t review as many products). My own reviews only take two questions into consideration: how does the work of art stand on its own, and how does it relate to the current society in which we live.  The policy of this blog is that I don’t give extra points for artists whom I like personally–everyone gets treated equally.  Some of the artists sometimes buy me free stuff, and I still give open and honest reviews.

Of course this pisses people off.  I also realize that if my own creative work ever gets into print, people may review my work.  And some of those reviews could be negative.

But here’s my philosophy on that: I think reviews are necessary.  I could promote everything and anything under the sun that is Asian American, but I think that eventually gets tiring.  For example, I KNOW that most of you would hate Girl in Translation, which is why I gave it a negative review.  I’d rather direct you to work that I know you’ll like–books like Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet or Waylaid or Miles from Nowhere.  That’s not to say that all people will hate Girl in Translation, but people who read a lot, know a lot of history, and love to discuss current events and cultural issues, will probably cringe at the racial portrayals.  And notice I didn’t call for a boycott–I’d be totally happy for people to support most works that I don’t like; it’s just that I personally don’t recommend them.

I think that reviewing work helps us as Asian American artists because it creates a dialogue around our work.  We review because we care.  Rather than having to silently accept and support something–a book, a music video, a movie–we can talk about what we liked and what we disliked, and in doing so, we can bring our own personal experiences into the discussion.  When artists see how their work is relevant to us, and when we share our own feelings as individuals and members of our group, we have a dialectic effect on the progression of Asian American art.  We become active players in our own advancement.  I don’t know about other people, but I would love to hear how my work affects others.

Think about the mainstream culture.  If you look at national reviewers on a larger scale, you can see how people like Michiko Kakutani and Roger Ebert act not just as gatekeepers, but also as people who shape the dialogue around literature and movies respectively.  By sharing both positive and negative thoughts, we can do the same in our own sphere.  Already we have seen some changes.  Look at how some actors have spoken about more AM/AF portrayals, and look at how some AF authors–despite not being married to AM–have AM/AF themes in their books.  I can’t help but think that much of this comes from the discussions that are taking place among common people like us.

(Pic from here.)

Related posts:

1. Upcoming Podcast: Crabs in a Bucket
2. big WOWO Podcast: Crabs in a Bucket
3. Gatekeepers and Phantom Players