I really don't mean to dwell on this subject. It really is one of the last things I regularly think about.
But I've also never before been called a racist, Nazi, or a mouthpiece for white supremacy. Over the last few days, my blog – in particular, a few posts – has been called "dangerous" and even compared to Mein Kampf, the infamous tract written by the master architect of hatred and organized state genocide, Adolf Hitler. I've been called a booster for the racist tract The Bell Curve, and implied to be a general supporter of racist, eugenicist ideologies.
This came as quite a surprise to me, since doctoral candidates at UC Berkeley's Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies are generally labeled as bleeding heart "liberals" as compared to the general population. At Brown, my undergraduate double major included American Studies, which was always considered pretty far left of center of my other major, History. Raving apologists for genocide and white supremacy generally don't work with at-risk youth as I have – both back home in Oakland and here in Seoul – as well as surrounded, to a fault, by friends working in crunchy non-profit organizations or as teachers working hard to make a difference in the public schools.
Well, this all happened on the bulletin board of a community site called "The Fighting 44's," where the slogan is "Closed Fist, Open Heart." I came across it because I noticed a sudden surge of referrals from this site on my stats page. Curious to know where I was getting a whole new group of readers from, I entered the site, where I noticed a discussion focused around a series of old posts from my blog about my reactions to a Korean American acquaintance of mine expressing his "disgust" at seeing a white man with a pregnant Korean woman (whom I assumed to be his wife) walking to the salad bar at a local Sizzler here in Seoul. It is – yes, to none of my regular readers' surprise – the irritatingly infamous Interracial Dating series to which I am referring.
Without getting into the details of the issue here, let me simply restate that my point was expressing the opinion that, despite the assertions of critics of interracial relationships and marriage to the contrary, the origin of the vitriol behind such nasty comments aimed at interracial couples – especially those composed of white men and Korea/Asian women – is not simply intellectual dismay at the disparities between the gender patterns of such couples, i.e. that there are many more white men dating Korean women than the other way around. I'm the first person to acknowledge the structural forces and the ideological tools that support the dominant group's interests – namely the negative, gendered racial stereotypes of Asian men and women – are historical and social facts. The disparity exists and for obvious, historical reasons. Surely there are are also a millions things we talk about as to why one sees more black men dating white women than the other way around, but that a whole 'nother, highly politicized discussion.
Now, here's the rub, and the land mine I guess I stepped on – the thing that seems to obscure the main point I've always been trying to make, one that would be good for the people concerned to look past. But maybe I'm unrealistic – as a trusted friend whom I consulted when I became upset about being called all kinds of stuff outside my name – about thinking that a lot of people might be able to look past what is, admittedly, a sore and sensitive point for a lot of Asian American men who have historically been the victims of emasculating, effeminizing racial stereotypes. What I am talking about is every man's sensitive point and what is behind the bulk of the spam mail that infects our email accounts – penis size.
Before we get any further with this, let me also mention that I agree with that same friend's criticism of my blog in general, that there is something else that may have further exacerbated the present situation, an additive factor above that of even my possible insensitivity to what may in fact be an issue that certain people may not be able to just take in the context in which I had actually intended it to be taken. This critique is that my writing is often simply lazy, being good in the raw, but largely undisciplined and often wholly disorganized. To this I would add that beyond this fact – which I recognize as true – I tend to not proofread and edit the mechanics of my writing, on top of not sitting long enough on the content of certain posts, especially those that are defensive, laced with anger and indignation, and could stand to have me sleep on them before hitting the "Publish" button. These are all very good points, to which I completely concede.
Yet, I still cannot abide what I consider to be the extreme overreaction of being called a Nazi, especially considering that 1) I have been clear from the beginning in my intentions in talking about the great taboo subject of size, 2) I am not speaking in categoricals about any group's intellectual, physical, or sexual potentials, and 3) I have clearly defined my opinions on the taboo subject, the nature of my anger as expressed towards what I consider to be the racist reactions of certain Asian American men and women to interracial couples and mixed people, as well as the interesting fact that I happen to clearly agree with all of the political and historical stances of my apparent detractors – especially as I consider myself to be a person whose words and actions support my beliefs in social justice and reform.
As a final note, let me also add that the way in which my opinions – no matter how controversial a single part of them might be – are dismissed largely because of the problematic ways in which my identity is considered; my status as a mixed person makes me at best "confused" or somehow "conflicted," at worst a racial "spy" or "traitor." In either case, I am not considered a "true" Asian, worthy of being allowed to criticize the group. In the end, I believe that to be one major wellspring from which a lot of the pure hatred with which some posts were written bubbles up.
In the end, it's interesting that my voice as a mixed person pointing out what I think are inconsiderate or outright racist comments made by given Asian American individuals is silenced by not only negating my claim to Asian identity, but also by certain commentors who seem to harbor overt negative images of black people and/or blackness itself. Is this not also problematic? While this way identity politics-based way of thinking doesn't quite fit into my strict definition of "racist," I do think that the way everyone in the Fighting 44's community ignored my valid main points about the ways that mixed people are mistreated by some in the Asian American community, only to blow up, completely out of proportion, my minor and not directly relevant side point about penis size and the problematic way it's constructed in (white) notions of masculinity, and in consideration of the sheer vitriol of the discourse over my mixed status – this seems to exactly reflect the sentiments of the acquaintance in the Sizzler with whom I had a problem in the first place.
For those readers who are interested and have the time, I've provided a set of links to all of this debate below. On the one hand, I do sincerely apologize to anyone whom I offended with the strong wording of my posts, but I do not believe any of my critiques to have been either illegitimate or outside the bounds of reasonable discourse. I understand that while the penis issue may be a sensitive one, I also ask those most concerned about the issue to at least try to see that in no way was I simply agreeing with and parroting the use of racist discourse against Asian men, but was pointing out that, perhaps given that there indeed might exist a difference in that area of the body that differs between the different groups of people on this planet – as height, hair and eye color, hair texture, and other superficial physical differences certainly do – maybe it's actually more useful to consider that the problem isn't the difference itself, but the way it's politicized and used by the dominant group in power.
I don't know many black people with blue eyes and blonde hair, even though blue eyes and blonde hair were defined as superior for centuries in European culture, and black folks still feel those effects today. By me saying – albeit perhaps in anger and insensitively in retrospect – that this is something to "get over" is meant in the same way that black folks started their own "I'm black and I'm proud" mental movement in the 60's – channeled through James Brown –and started turning away white Barbie dolls and tried to stop straightening their hair. Have black people completely succeeded in this? No, obviously not. But I only meant to suggest that rather than trying to whip out 'em out and measure 'em to make some questionable political point, it might be far better to reject "The Man's" narrow and oppressive definition of masculinity altogether.
I believe in being frank and honest about what one thinks and believes, as well the usefulness of heated but respectful debate (and I admit at one point to having been baited into impropriety in one of the comments on my blog by another inappropriate commentor, which I regret but will not delete). But I don't believe in slanderous, hateful vitriol, often based not on my argument, but my racial background and other people's interpretations of what they think my identity should be.
But in the interests of trying to be open to the fact that perhaps I was inconsiderate, as well as being genuinely interested in the responses of other people I respect, I submit the full debate to my readers, as well as to two other sources I respect, whose opinion in this issue I would value – the voices behind the websites Addicted to Race and Angry Asian Man. I don't agree with every single political view or opinion held by the writers on these sites, but I do understand and respect their points of view. I also don't expect that they will necessarily agree with me completely, either. This is why I have sent an email to the operators of these websites for their reasoned consideration. In the end, I think this is a debate worth having and extending to others who should have some interesting opinions of the subject that may well differ from mine and/or be better informed.
One person quipped that this whole conversation is a "stunt" to get more readers on my site, but isn't the point of blogging and having these virtual debates to exchange ideas with as many people as possible? Why else do we run blog sites, debate in seldom-traveled corners of the Internet, or even read what other people like – and unlike – us have to say on the Web? I didn't make the initial post as a publicity stunt, but just because I was angry at what I considered to be a really offensive statement of the kind I'd heard a lot of Korean American folks here and at home make; and yes, as an extended response to the "scandal" in the Hongdae night club last year (somewhat explanative links here and here) in which Korean netizens not only posted the unaltered pictures from the party, but the names and even addresses of the Korean girls getting friendly (completely voluntarily, if in bad taste) with a bunch of white English teachers. Here's what many Korean men were angry about:
Seeing people behaving in questionable taste, as in the picture above, may anger you and remind you of all kinds of things in society that are unfair or screwed up on a structural level. For a lot of reasons, white men enjoy a lot sexual license in Asia, at home, and everywhere else the hegemony of Europe and the United States has extended in the world, which means just about everywhere. But bringing it into the realm of the personal and making personal attacks on individuals you don't know from Adam or Eve – that just doesn't translate for me as appropriate. I don't care who you are or what legitimate gripes you have with racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other kind of discrimination. Having been a victim does not give you the right to victimize.
What scares and angers me is that the nature of the reaction of the Fighting 44's seems the same as that of many Korean (and almost exclusively male) netizens – an anger that is partially based on being somewhat legitimately sick and tired of the power some "stupid white men" gain from the extended hegemonic cultural power of the West and especially the United States, as well as the ways that power extends into notions of beauty, masculinity, and even sexual desire itself. But when it is expressed in what I consider to be illegitimate ways – either by Korean netizens suggesting that any white man in Hongdae with a Korean woman be ganged up on and beaten to teach the "sluts" who are with them a lesson, or by something as seemingly "harmless" as calling a similar couple walking to the salad bar in a Sizzler "disgusting" – I think I have a right to say something. And since the paternalistic notions of ownership of "our" women are inextricably mixed up with misogynist ideas of how to "discipline" them, this strikes me as problematic on a lot of levels more fundamentally significant than worrying about the political importance of the question, "Who's bigger?"
Which brings me to mention that what many people see is Korean American men enjoying the thing that all men with blue passports sporting a gold eagle share – the bright, shining light of American, native English-speaking privilege, something that not just a few Korean American men in Korea don't like to talk about when engaging in exactly the same kind of tasteless behavior as displayed in the picture above. The only difference is that the flashlight doesn't tend to get turned in their direction, even as I have seen many of these men hold and act upon the same assumptions about "native" Korean women, their expected gender roles and responsibilities, as well as vastly arrogant and very American ideas of entitlement, privilege, and the perceived right to enjoy the extraordinary sexual license that being an American man in Asia affords.
And remember – mine is a blog written by a foreigner living in Korea and talking about certain a Korean American man's words and behavior in Korea; this is the context in which I wrote – obviously. And this man's ideas were expressed through words that revealed what was to me an obvious, racially-based distaste for an individual's choices to date across the racial "line" and disgust at the very existence of "mixed" people – so I felt obligated to say my piece.
And that is my main point and always has been, ever since my very first post. It may have been a little rough around the edges, but I stand by what I said, even if the way I said it ruffled a few feathers.
Links all open in another window and are listed :
Original Post and Flamewar I
Response Post and Flamewar II
Flamewar III
Discussion List on The Fighting 44's Website
I encourage you to read everything, percolate on where you stand, what you think was fair and what wasn't, and to post to the comments. I'd also like for people to actually comment on the issue of what I posted about in the first place, which is the actually interesting question of how much one can hold individuals responsible for the structural factors that inform or make possible their relations. This is in addition to the inevitable conversation about the politics of penis size that will ensue.
In any case, I thank everyone who comes to my blog for reading, even those who choose to personally attack me. As I said, heated debate is what the 'Net is for – I am just hoping that we can be civil to each other when we debate, especially given the fact that I certainly try very hard to refrain from ad hominem attacks made merely for the sake of shutting down debate and silencing people.
Hopefully this last debate can usefully put this issue not to rest, but can at least bring it back into the realm of legitimate debate. Again, I apologize for any bruised egos or stepped-on toes.
