One of the main themes in my research as a scholar in Sociology and Asian American Studies is the connection between individual and institutional processes of assimilation. As I’ve written about in various posts on this blog, this particular focus can take many different forms.

One form that I’ve recently started to follow more closely concerns anti-communist political activism among Vietnamese Americans. In fact, I’ve just completed a chapter entitled “‘Better Dead Than Red’: Anti-Communist Politics Among Vietnamese Americans” in an upcoming book that’s titled Anti-Communist Minorities in the U.S.: The Political Activism of Ethnic Refugees, edited by Ieva Zake (Palgrave-MacMillan Publishing) that’s set to come out early next year.

In that chapter, I write that while the inevitable forces of assimilation are likely to result in a moderation of fervent anti-communist sentiment among younger Vietnamese Americans, there is still a strong level of ethnic solidarity within the Vietnamese American community. Combined with continuing incidents of human rights abuses in Viet Nam, I conclude that anti-communist activism among Vietnamese Americans may evolve into different forms but is unlikely to become eliminated or even notably lessened any time soon.

As the latest examples of the continuing salience of anti-communism among Vietnamese Americans, two recent incidents illustrate the power of symbols and visual images and how they reflect upon the legacy of the Viet Nam War.

The first incident, as reported by the Orange County Register, involves a community college in Irvine, California (located only a few miles from Little Saigon) recently deciding to remove the flag of Viet Nam from public display after local Vietnamese Americans threatened to demonstrate against it:

The 144 miniature flags have hung from the second-floor atrium for many years without controversy, in a gesture designed to symbolize the diversity of the college’s student body. On Thursday, college officials removed the display in the wake of threats that busloads of protesters could arrive to disrupt the campus if the Vietnamese flag were not removed. . . .

Westminster Councilman Andy Quash and Garden Grove Councilwoman Dina Nguyen said they met with college officials Wednesday after receiving calls from numerous constituents about the flag display.

“We reminded them that in 1999, in the city of Westminster, that flag hung in a video store led to a 49-day protest peaking at 50,000 people,” Quash said. “I’m sure the college hung the flag without realizing it is very provocative to certain students.” . . .

“It’s offensive because this flag represents a regime that is very dictatorial and does not respect human rights,” Nguyen said. “It is not democratic, and that is why a lot of Vietnamese Americans are here as refugees. To see that being honored, well, millions of people lost their lives over that flag.”

The second incident, as described by the San Mateo County Times, involves a work of art created by a young Vietnamese American that was intended to pay tribute to the refugee experience of Vietnamese Americans but instead has been interpreted by many as pro-communist.

The offending photo was of a piece of art by a University of California, Davis, graduate student and Vietnamese immigrant who saw the creation — a yellow-and-red foot-spa tub — as a salute to Vietnamese refugees like her mother-in-law who toiled in a nail salon after the family came to America.

But the protesters saw something far more menacing.

The tub was yellow with three red stripes, which the protesters said must be a reference to the flag of the fallen country of South Vietnam. And the spa’s yellow power cord was plugged into a red outlet, which seemed to resemble the flag of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, now under communist rule.

“Why is the South Vietnamese flag on a thing that people wash their dirty feet in?” asked Uc Van Nguyen, 70, who attended some of the rallies, which began in late January. . . .

Meanwhile, the artist said she had no intention of offending anyone when she bought a foot spa from a nail shop, painted it yellow and red. . . . She saw the art creation as a way to honor Vietnamese women who have “toiled and sacrificed enormously for the future of their children and family,” she wrote.

To try to put these two incidents in perspective, as I wrote in my chapter that I mentioned above, it would be easy for many Americans to criticize the Vietnamese American protesters and to say things like, “You may find the images offensive, but as Americans, you should respect the right of people to freely express themselves however they want. If you don’t, you’re just replicating the same kind of authoritarianism that you blast the communists for committing.”

While there is some truth to this particular argument, I would point out that first, in the same way that the artist or school has the freedom to express themselves however they want, so too do others have the right to criticize such expressions. In other words, freedom of expression is a two-way street — express yourself however you want, but be prepared to receive potentially critical expressions in return.

This is not to say that I always agree with the protesters and in fact, I do not share their interpretation that the “foot tub” artwork shown above (thanks to Kym Pham for the URL) is offensive and an insult to the Vietnamese refugee experience. There are other instances as well in which I disagree with many anti-communist opinions. At the same, I respect and defend their right to express their interpretations that may be counter to mine.

In fact, it is this particular right that allows historically marginalized groups such as Asian Americans to criticize recent media portrayals that many of us find offensive, including a college newspaper column meant as “satire” or the anti-Filipino Desperate Housewives episode.

Secondly, when people criticize such Vietnamese American protests (particularly non-Vietnamese), in many cases they have little or no connection whatsoever to the refugee experiences that form the basis of such strong anti-communist sentiments. In other words, it is easy for others to say, “Come on, that was 30 years ago — just let it go already” without truly understanding the level of suffering that many Vietnamese endured and still endure in the form of family members killed or separated.

Therefore, in the same way we need to truly understand the historical impacts of past experiences of injustice and suffering experienced by other racial/ethnic minority groups, so too should Americans be careful not to minimize the impact of the Viet Nam War and their forced exit out of their ancestral land by hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees.

At the same time, Vietnamese Americans should hopefully understand that there is a limit to their protests. Verbal criticisms and mass demonstrations are perfectly legitimate expressions of dissent, but threats and acts of violence are not. In those cases, the laws of this country are clear and there are no exceptions, regardless of how angry one feels or one’s level of past suffering.

In short, these are the factors and boundaries involved in Vietnamese American political activism and freedom of expression — we have broad opportunities to express our experiences, our grief, and our anger, but there are limits that we need to keep in mind. This is ultimately part of what it means to be Vietnamese American.

While the “successes” of many Asian Americans have reinforced and perpetuated the image of our community as the “model minority,” sometimes examples come along to shatter that tranquil and serene image.

Case in point — as the Boston Globe reports, a video of a brutal beating by Vietnamese American gang members in Dorchester, MA has spurred the community there to take a hard look at what’s going on in their own backyards:

Last spring, in a parking lot behind a Dorchester church, nearly two dozen Vietnamese-American teenagers stomped, kicked, and punched two others, a 14-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy. By the end, the bloodied victims, sprawled on the pavement, could barely move. . . .

The video has forced Vietnamese immigrants in Fields Corner – who own many of the restaurants, bakeries, and dress shops in the tight-knit neighborhood – to talk to police, church leaders, and other citywide organizations about a problem that until now they have been reluctant to admit.

As I wrote in my article on Asian American Gangs, communities such as the Vietnamese American community in Dorchester can either go into denial that there is a problem and pretend that there’s nothing wrong in order to avoid “bringing shame” to themselves, or they can admit that social problems exist and that they need help in addressing them, for the good of the entire community.

Fortunately, it looks like they are moving towards the latter option. Let’s just hope there’s effective action to confront the gang problem there before it escalates and more people are hurt.

As a university professor, I tend to be particularly sensitive to how Asian Americans are treated on college campuses. With that in mind, two recent events highlight both the good and the bad aspects of how Asian Americans are treated in higher education.

First off is the bad part: as many Asian American bloggers have already commented on, last week there was a racist “satire” column published in the student newspaper at the University of Colorado at Boulder that perpetuated numerous racial stereotypes against Asian Americans.

As you can read for yourself, here are some excerpts:

Asians are not just “a product of their environment,” and their rudeness is not a “cultural misunderstanding.” They hate us all.

And I say it’s time we started hating them back. That’s right-no more “tolerance.” No more “cultural sensitivity.” No more “Mr. Pretend-I’m-Not-Racist.” It’s time for war. . . . If you’re not sure if someone is an Asian, give them a calculus problem to do in their head. If they get it right, net ’em. . . .

Before we let the Asians go, we will go to their homes and redecorate them in a traditional American style. We will replace their rice cookers with George Foreman Grills, their green tea mochi with fried Snickers bars, and their rice rockets with Hummers. And booster seats. . . .

The only other way to make peace would be to expel you.

At best, the column is a rather idiotic and incoherent diatribe against perceived cultural differences. But in reality, it reinforces racial biases and prejudices against Asian Americans and sets us further apart as “foreigners” who will never, ever be considered “Americans.” Other Asian Americans have weighed in with their own critiques as well.

Of course, there are defenders of the column who argue that freedom of speech allows the writer to say whatever he wants and that ultimately, it’s meant as a joke and that we Asian Americans should all just lighten up. To that argument, here is my standard response:

What we need to recognize is that there are fundamental institutional power differences inherent in situations in which White public figures denigrate minorities and that each time an incident like that happens, it reinforces the notion of White supremacy — that Whites can say whatever they want against anybody at any time.

I’m also not surprised to hear a White person say that they don’t feel offended by anything because as a collective racial group, Whites already enjoy so many other privileges associated with their skin color. Isn’t it just typical for Whites and their lackeys to say “sticks and stones” and “get just it over it.” Unfortunately, that comment only serves to provide us with nothing else than a clear illustration of White privilege and supremacy.

As an update to this story, after meeting with university officials, staff at the student newspaper have agreed to undergo diversity training to ensure that such “editing lapses” in the future. I suppose that’s good news, but it would have been nice if someone, anyone involved could have come to their senses in the beginning and realized that perpetuating racial stereotypes, even when it’s meant as satire, is almost never a good idea.

Fortunately, I have better news to try to offset this episode: the University of Washington recently announced that they will award honorary baccalaureate degrees to hundreds of former Japanese American students whose education were terminated when they were imprisoned after the Pearl Harbor attack at the start of World War II:

UW spokesman Bob Roseth said the decision to award the degrees was at least partly because of a two-part series of articles that ran two years ago in the university’s alumni magazine, Columns. The series detailed the stories of a handful of the students who were forced to leave the university more than 60 years ago. . . .

“It’s only taken … 66 years to address this injustice,” UW Regent Stanley Baer said. “It occurs to me to take some comfort in the fact that a president couldn’t do that today,” added Regent Bill Gates Sr. . . .

Tetsuden Kashima, UW professor of American ethnic studies, said limited information has been gathered about 390 of the students. Kashima, who petitioned the regents to approve the measure, isn’t sure how many of the students are still alive.

It is a little unfortunate that it took the University of Washington more than 60 years to take this step but nonetheless, it is a noteworthy and symbolic acknowledgment of a grave historical injustice.

I can only hope that as we move forward into the increasingly globalized and transnational 21st century that I will see more events like the University of Washington declaration, and less of incidents like that at the University of Colorado.

It always seems to be two steps forward, one step back.

I’ve written before about how many aspects of traditional Asian culture are increasingly becoming incorporated into mainstream American culture, with some of the most recent examples being manga, food and cuisine, and meditation. As the Associated Press/Salon.com report, we can now add feng shui in fast food restaurants to that list:

The only familiar signs at the McDonald’s in this large Asian community are the golden arches, the drive-through and the menu. Gone are the plastic furniture, Ronald McDonald and the red and yellow palette that has defined the world’s largest hamburger chain. Leather seats, earth tones, bamboo plants and water trickling down glass panels have taken their place.

The makeover elements are meant to help diners achieve happiness and fortune — whether they realize it or not. That’s because the restaurant was redesigned using the principles of feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of arranging objects and numbers to promote health, harmony and prosperity. . . .

The McDonald’s in this Los Angeles suburb boasts wood ceiling, silver-coated chairs, plus red accents throughout the dining area to symbolize fire and “good luck, laughter and prosperity,” said Brenda Clifford, who designed the dining area.

The textured walls patterned after ocean waves symbolize “life and relaxation — the balanced things that you want in your life,” she said. . . . Two workers at the nearby post office said they’ve been taking more lunch breaks at the remodeled McDonald’s, which opened in late December. . . .

Nevermind that this is the same McDonald’s that’s been vilified by critics over its artery-clogging Big Macs and fries.

Can capitalism and natural harmony coexist, or as the last line that I quoted above suggests, is it simply akin to putting lipstick on a pig? At this point, you can judge for yourself.

My main observation for now is that while it is nice that the “mainstreamization” of traditional Asian cultural elements such as feng shui are mostly positive and hopefully symbolize the larger acceptance of Asians and Asian Americans into the fundamental fabric of American society, it would also be nice if the cultural acceptance of things like feng shui were also accompanied by larger institutional changes such as more political power, fewer hate crimes, more opportunities for corporate advancement, etc.

I received the following email enlisting my help to publicize a grant competition for older Americans engaging in “social entrepreneurship”:

————————————————

Hi, my name is Emily (half-Filipina!) and I work for an organization called Civic Ventures. We run a “Purpose Prize” program for social innovators over age 60. Winners receive $100,000; this is our third year.

Would love to see more Asian American nominees. FYI – my boss was profiled in the NY Times on Monday, in case you want to learn more about our organization, Civic Ventures.

Best,
Emily Gillingham
egillingham@civicventures.org

————————————————

As stated on their website:

Each year, since 2006, Civic Ventures has awarded The Purpose Prize: five $100,000 investments and ten $10,000 investments in exceptional individuals who are defying expectations by channeling their creativity and talent to address critical social problems at the local, regional, or national level.

The winners are effective and action-oriented innovators who have launched this work after their 50th birthday. They work in nonprofits, government, or for-profit organizations devoted to tackling the hardest challenges of our time: homelessness, social justice and human rights, violence, poverty and hunger, health, education, and the environment, to name a few.

They make their impact in many different ways. The winners include: social entrepreneurs who have started new organizations; change-makers whose innovative approaches to leadership have transformed existing organizations; or grassroots activists playing a leadership role in improving communities or advancing a cause. And they hold the promise of even greater accomplishments in the future.

We already know that Asian Americans are very adept at being capitalist innovators and entrepreneurs, so let’s get out there and put our social innovation and entrepreneurship skills to work as well!

Here’s another announcement from the folks at MixedChicksChat.com:

The First Annual Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival

We are now accepting submissions. This is going to be a wonderful event held at the Japanese American National Museum in LA on the anniversary of the Loving decision (June 12-15, 2008). Please see submission info below:

The Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival will be an annual event celebrating films and literary works exploring racially and culturally Mixed heritages. The Festival is created to support and encourage emerging and established filmmakers and writers to tell stories of the racially and culturally Mixed experience.

We are currently seeking submissions for films and literary works as well as workshop proposals. If you are submitting a film, please send a short synopsis, bio and the film in DVD format. If you are interested in reading your own literary work (plays, poetry, fiction, screenplays, creative nonfiction, spoken word) please e-mail a bio and 10 pages of your published or unpublished writing. If you would like to lead a workshop, please send a bio and an outline of your workshop. Workshops are allotted 1-2 hours.

Please send your films to:

Dusky Sally Productions
P.O. Box 291775
Los Angeles, CA 90029

If you would like us to return your film please include a self-addressed envelope with postage paid. If you would like acknowledgment of your submission, please include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

Please e-mail your literary work or workshop proposal to: mixedchicks@yahoo.com with ‘Mixed Roots Film & Literary Submission’ in the subject line.

There is no fee for submissions. The deadline for submissions is: Tuesday, March 4th 2008 (if you have a film in post production and need more time, please contact us). You will receive an e-mail notification by Friday, April 4th 2008.

We look forward to your submissions and to meeting you at the first annual Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival. For updates on the festival, please visit: www.mixedrootsfilmandliteraryfestival.com

As India and China continue to emerge as international superpowers, it is almost inevitable that they will see each other as rivals for global resources and influence. However, many people may not know that tension and even hostility between these two countries have existed long before their recent economic expansion.

As Time magazine reports, both countries have claimed a disputed part of their border with each other since 1962 and India has accused China of simultaneously arming its other major rival Pakistan with nuclear weapons while trying to block India’s acquisition of the same weapons. For its part, China is not happy with India’s increasingly close military relations with the U.S.

Nonetheless, recent meetings between each country’s leaders may be paving the way for improved relations between the two countries:

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh left Beijing with 11 memorandums signed and a renewed spirit of goodwill forged between the two titans of Asia. “We are at an exciting point in history when the center of gravity of the world economy is moving towards Asia,” Singh [said]. The agreement of principles adopted by the two sides was titled “A Shared Vision for the 21st Century.” . . .

What brings both sides together, however, as it has done for generations, is commerce. The previous round of Sino-Indian talks in New Delhi last year set a goal of boosting bilateral trade to $40 billion by 2010 — that figure is likely to be eclipsed two years ahead of schedule, and was pumped up after this week’s meetings to $60 billion. Business leaders on both sides are pressing for further measures to integrate their booming economies.

The article takes pains to describe the many obstacles that still exist between India and China before genuine and close cooperation can occur. Nonetheless, I would agree with those who say that the future is likely to bring warmer, rather than colder, relations between Asia’s emerging superpowers.

Also, while I could be wrong, I’m guessing that this prospect of closer cooperation and relations between India and China is not something the U.S. wanted to hear . . .

Being the keen demographic observer that I am, I noticed that the Census Bureau just released their Atlas of the U.S., a collection of maps that illustrate the geographic distribution of various demographic characteristics of the U.S. population.

Within their chapter on Race and Hispanic Origin, they present one map that I found particularly interesting: the geographic distribution of interracial/interethnic couples in which one is Asian Pacific American. If you click on the map, you can view a larger-size version:

Areas (they’re actually counties) in darker blue represent higher levels of concentration. I point out this map because it illustrates a point that I have consistently made through the years about Asian American interracial marriage that many Asian Americans seem to have a difficult time believing — areas with larger Asian American populations tend to have a lower prevalence of interracial marriages than areas with small Asian American populations.

Specifically, last year over at Jenn Fang’s blog Reappropriate, her readers got into a huge debate about Asian American interracial marriage (that happens often all around the internet, actually), and many of them referenced my statistics that I present on this site.

In trying to explain this phenomenon from a sociological point of view to Jenn’s readers, I wrote, “In large metro areas such as LA/OC, NYC, etc. that contain a large Asian American population, Asian American interracial marriage rates tend to be lower because the pool of potential marriage partners who are Asian American is obviously larger.”

Still, many Asian Americans have a hard time believing that particular point. So for them, I present this map from the Census Bureau as further proof — if you look at the Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, etc. metropolitan areas, you’ll see that they are colored with lighter shades of blue, indicating lower percentages of all couples in that area that include one Asian American.

Something tells me that this map will not end the debate, but in my mind, it is pretty convincing evidence.

This past week was extremely busy and tiring for me and therefore, I did not have the chance to comment on the Super Tuesday results, especially as they relate to Asian American voters. The basic summary is that, as you have probably already heard, it was pretty much a dead heat between Clinton and Obama, with Clinton winning slightly more delegates but Obama winning more states.

Regarding Asian American voters, the biggest story was that in California, they voted for Clinton by a surprisingly large margin of 3-to-1. These particular results have led many to ask to what extent did racial prejudice against Blacks (and therefore, against Obama) play in their decisions to overwhelmingly support Clinton.

Fortunately, others have argued quite convincingly that rather than racial prejudice, the main reasons why Asian American voters in California voted in large numbers for Clinton more than likely included a preference for more familiar, “establishment” candidates, and those who are currently more associated with being powerful and influential, both of which Clinton personifies more than Obama. For example, Jeff Chang succinctly writes:

Clinton’s main advantage is that she has the access to power and the party structures that deliver promises to officials and operatives. Obama doesn’t. Emergent politics favors individuals seeking power. Think of it this way: Hillary, the woman candidate, is bringing Latino and Asian American leaders into the old-boy’s network.

These leaders, in turn, deliver votes via their community’s structures of power: business groups, labor unions, voter groups, community organizations. Those groups tend to deliver an older voter who is already “in the game”, who can directly benefit from the opening of the old-boy’s network. “Experience” really is a cover for “access.”

Jeff goes on to note that since Obama’s strength seems to lie more with younger voters, rather than older ones, it’s likely that he did much better with younger Asian American voters in California as well, while less successful with their parents.

It’s also conceivable that Obama experienced some fallout from the controversy regarding the 80-20 Initiative’s initial call to defeat him over whether he would endorse its official platform.

For now, what we do know is that Obama and his campaign have some work to do in terms of winning over Asian American (and Latino American) voters. While they appeal quite successfully to younger members of both groups and their anti-establishment sense, that message and orientation apparently do not play as well with older members.

The campaign and fight for the nomination is still wide open between him and Clinton but at the least, Obama’s campaign should now know where they stand and what they need to do.

I received the following email asking to help recruit participants for a podcast on multiracial children (as always, links are provided for informational purposes only and do not necessarily represent an endorsement of their content):

————————————-

We’re Fanshen Cox and Heidi Durrow, hosts of Mixed Chicks Chat, the only live weekly podcast about being racially and culturally Mixed. We are looking for White fathers who have mixed children to participate in our podcast on February 20th at 5 pm Eastern.

The conversation is a half hour and our podcast is an open, honest and positive forum. Please let us know if you or someone you know would like to add to the conversation.

Fanshen & Heidi
The Mixed Chicks
www.mixedchickschat.com
www.mixedchickschat.typepad.com
Listen to our podcast at www.talkshoe.com (keywords: Mixed Chicks) or subscribe on www.itunes.com.

You may have heard that today, February 7, 2008, is the Lunar New Year and the start of the Year of the Rat. For Vietnamese Americans such as myself, it is also the start of Tet, the Vietnamese New Year.

Read about some characteristics of people born under the Year of the Rat (those who turn 12, 24, 36, etc. from this day forward until one year from now) and a list of some famous “rats” at my article on Tet, a Celebration of Rebirth.

There are many things of which Japan and the Japanese citizens can be proud — technological innovation, strong economic power, and cultural trendsetter. On the other hand and just like any other country, there are other things for which Japan deserves to be criticized — nationalistic denials over its World War II atrocities, its insistence on continuing to kill whales, and its reputation for being intolerant of “outsiders.”

But as Buddhists will tell you, things are always changing and specifically, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, there seems to be an emerging trend in which young Japanese are increasingly embracing ethnic and cultural diversity in Japan and in the process, helping to change Japan’s reputation toward more tolerance of diversity:

Miharu Tanaka hands out fliers in Tokyo advertising Brazilian eateries in Oizumi, a city two hours away by train. The young woman makes the commute to encourage people to visit the country’s most diverse city, with its 16 percent non-Japanese population.

Her efforts are part of a generational shift toward becoming more receptive to a multicultural Japan. But in a country that has long prided itself on homogeneity and is seeing a rise in Japanese-centric nationalism, it will take some persuading for most people to embrace the growing reality of a more diverse population.

Japan has long been wary of – even hostile to – foreigners in its midst. Some say the media perpetuate a stereotyped image of foreigners as criminals. Japan’s bias against foreigners shows in its immigration laws. It is virtually impossible for immigrants to find work here and become citizens. . . .

But a growing number of Japanese – mostly youths, such as Tanaka – are trying to persuade compatriots to embrace ethnic minorities. Unlike in previous generations, young adults tend to be more welcoming of diversity. Some analysts argue that, in a country with a dwindling birthrate – 1.32 as of 2006, down from 1.66 two decades ago – and a rapidly aging population, Japan should roll out the red carpet for foreigners.

Perhaps not by coincidence, this apparent shift in attitude in favor of “foreigners” and/or greater diversity complements the Japanese government’s efforts to increase tourism to their country, as the Christian Science Monitor reports.

I commend the work of young Japanese such as Miharu Tanaka and I wish her and others like her the best success. But it’s clear that they are facing an uphill battle against centuries, even millenia of tradition and custom. Nonetheless, as they say, the only constant in the world is change.