This “Angry Asian Movement” – Reflections on DV Controv
Now that the Deadly Vipers controv has died down I can comment in retrospect and objectively.
More so than the controversy itself I think I’ll comment on the emerging asian-american consensus that is arising, a vociferous element that has finally gotten in touch with its angry side, its unabashed and bold calling out of the “white man” and its strong presence on the internet. I would say the DV controv is in some respects the hallmark event that congealed the solidarity of this movement, a sort of historic moment in my opinion. I see strengths and weaknesses of this incipient movement:
No doubt such solidarity is needed. The strengths of such a movement (of which I identify) need not be mentioned; they are self-evident in the masses of formerly polite, coy asians who have now found their voices in a largely hegemonic society.
But there is one problem I am beginning to perceive: The sudden prevalence of “angry asians” has elicited its own reaction: “why so angry?” “what strong injustices are you perceiving?” and of course, the egregious, “I have asian friends!” But I think the most damning is the allegation of liberalism, especially pertaining to the evangelical Christian dimension of this “angry asian movement”. It rides on the coattails (and advancements) of previous protest movements, e.g. Black power, Liberationism, even feminist movement. I for one, have found tremendous value to the interpretation of society (and thus reality) as applied by these camps. But the conclusions of some have troubled me: violence as means to end, and the hope for a socialist gov’t – have left me unconvinced. And that leads to what I perceive to be one danger of the angry asian movement – it risks dismissal as “liberal” based on these presuppositions, and any dismissal is really an unwillingness to consider its claims at all.
I wonder if this movement will find a greater currency if the hermeneutic of society is tempered by a more vigorous theological foundation, and not just the quick and thoughtless application of sociological critique – for while necessary, this is quickly deconstructed by the intellectual mind, and thus, dismissed. What this vigorous theological foundation looks like is…
Like
Wayne, I wonder if you ever thought that using the term “white man” in the context used in your post was racist? If you didn’t think it was… then you are exactly at the same point that the “DV controv” folks were at when they were saying okay to the ideas that they used. Meaning you don’t think “white man” is racist, but it is, as also they didn’t think their stuff in DV was racist, but it also is….
Second I am wondering if you feel that the victory Asian-Americans “won” in the “DV controv” is on the same level as the movements you mentioned above, or were you merely using them as comparisons?
@Guy
save for your concession that DV was indeed racist, I can’t help but note a bit of cynicism in your comment. Nobody won anything; an objection was made albeit a strong one, and the material was pulled down. Don’t think of it in terms of win / loss because then you’ve made a false dichotimization, i.e., good guys vs. bad guys.
What’s happening behind the scenes is a push for a more thoughtful expression of church, one that doesn’t co-opt asian culture as a neat marketing ploy, and one that takes seriously that asians are comprising a considerable, growing portion of Christianity in America. If you are feeling somehow marginalized or offended by the whole thing, welcome to what is a regular part of our experience in school, work, life. And that’s why I can’t take seriously your allegation of reverse-racism – my guess is you haven’t experienced it enough. Am I wrong?
@Guy
I’ve come to understand “racism” as prejudice tied to privilege and power, not to calling someone “white” or “black” or “native” or whatnot. Let me explain what I mean (sorry it is long-winded, I just like to start at the beginning so as to communicate well).
White folks could be prejudiced against Asian folks, and Asian folks could be prejudiced against White folks, that’s true. But the -ism is tied to power. I can tell you’ve been thinking through this a lot and in the whole DV thing (i followed the link in your name here to your blog). As you mentioned there, the majority of people in the US are white (i mean that as “of european-mostly western-descent”, not as skin tone). Based on that majority, and the history of this nation, white folks have, as a people group, more power (social/political/etc) than other racial groups in this country.
Because of this majority and power, white norms and cultures (whether irish, swedish, immigrant mix, etc) become the standards. Which leaves non-white people as “different” to white people, and quite often, misunderstood. It’s not a part of most white folks’ social consciousnesses, as we just live a “normal” life.
So back to what is racism. Racism comes in to play when the racial group in power, which in the US is white folks, take advantage of or discriminate against people of a minority racial group, or believe in that kind of discrimination. In the DV mess, discrimination (however unintentional and well meaning the authors are, which most of the asian-american blog communities have acknowledged) was in the form of misrepresented minority culture and the misuse of minority cultural tropes to market an unrelated book. It is all because of the power of the majority racial group, white folks, to unknowingly comment on and pass judgment on the culture that is “different” and “not normal.” And the majority group, white folks, have the power to dismiss the complaints and corrections of the minority group, because the white folks are the majority of the people producing the material, marketing the material, selling the material, and a lot of the buying of the materials. It’s all about the power and the norms.
Thoughts? Did I say anything poorly?
Peace.
Shout out Wayne. I yield to your mastery of blog writing (your post sounds really smart!).
I whole heartedly agree with the call for theologic reflection. There does seem to be a large gap between why is stuff like the viper book important to “me” because of “my social context” and why is it important to me because of my context “as a christian”. Ray Aldred is a hero of mine and I find he approaches this discussion with a really strong theological argument. He and people like C. West, I believe, provide a frame work for christians to particpate in such toucy matters like race, as christians even without a “personal racial” context.
Side bar. I LOVE the people who called the DV folk out. I love where they were coming from and the voice-raising and heart sharing, hurt revealing talk. But, I personally feel like the MAIN question wasn’t whether or not DV uses of imagery or theme was somehow racist or not (our culture is so jacked-so many things are some how racist- perhaps most things in the marketplace). I thought the more pertinent question was, why is it that the message of the DV people was presented in a way that it excluded people who would be sensitive to whoring out commercial interpretations of real culture? It seemed to be clearly meant to speak to the suburban “i wish i knew quentin tarantino” folk. A population that probably leans to a certain ethnic group.
I get why a popular “christian” book that seems to not take christan chinese, korean, japanese, communities into account can be hurtful to those communities and friends. It sucks to be an after thought, or not thought of at all. Thats the real discussion to me. “Why are we still so foreign to each other that we don’t even know what is offensive or exclusive?”
To make the inverse point of unintended racism (which is a deserved critique, me thinks), is unfruitful and may even earn the “angry asian” title and the crap that goes along with it. Seinfeld and Friends and the Washington Redskins and the Washington State tax laws, and college application tests, and most everything can be justifiably argued as unintentionally racist.
@Matt
I can see the Tarantino thing you’re talkign about – let’s face it – some aspects of asian parodied culture is cool. But somewhere it went south, turned sour, and the material waned. I’m reading Lord of the Rings and it’s also amazing how such a great book actually has pretty strong yet subtle racialized themes.
At the risk of answering my own question…
posted this on http://nextgenerasianchurch.com basically looking for some stronger undergirdings for the whole angry asian protest. Something I’ve been working on now for half a year and it’s not losing interest, so I plan to pursue it in further study. Here it is.
___________________
“I’m working on a thesis attacking this situation from a Patristic / Trinitarian standpoint. A technical discussion follows, if you’ve the patience.
I’m using the Eastern Orth. tradition of the social model of the Trinity – the ontological dialectic of 100% man / 100% God – that is to say, the ontological Triunity of God provides us not only with a communitarian vision but a dialectic for a social vision, that is to say, the lowering of a higher class (incarnation) but also the raising of a lower class (ascension).
The problem with the angry asian discussion thus far is that it has quickly adopted the language of the social sciences, a starting point that is suspect and quickly deconstructed (and thus dismissed) by the perceiving eye. Think how easy it is for us to toss around words like “white privilege”, “glass-ceiling”, “systemic”. The result is that an important discussion becomes semiotically foreign at best and bitterly polemical at worst.
What’s needed are asian american theologians who are able to tackle this from a more robust starting point. OK, call it giving into the Western theological hegemony, that argument has been going on for millenia, and frankly it will never win. I can count on one hand prominent theologians off the top of my head who are attempting this divorcing from Christianity’s philosophical beginnings and I can say they are sharpening their own stakes they’ll end up on.
In the end I appeal to the Trinity because it carries the gravity of several church Councils, Patristic writings, and current theological renewal. The Trinity (in its social model) is the perfect dialectic that lowers God but also raises man. We’re not askign for more charity; we’re asking for representation – and that’s what the ascension of Christ into the community that is called “God” is all about.”