The Vicissitudes of White Privilege

Well, dear readers, I've been sitting on this post for a long time, a few months in fact, because I wanted to be sure I wasn't being rash or shooting off angry posts from the hip. I have also been defending myself from baseless accusations of "racism" that I later – after receiving posts patting me on the back for allegedly putting Asian men "in their place" while being laced with comments about how "tight" Asian "pussy" is and thanks, dude for telling it "like it is" – the conversation about apparent "racism" and how things are talked about became linked, at least in my head, on my blog.

By the way, if you have a short attention span and might want to get a preview of what this whole post's point is before I get to my normal, long-winded treatment of the subject, you can scroll down to the section entitled "THE POINT" to see what I'm trying to say up front.

But first of all, let me correct a few errors in thinking and also talk about why I talk so much about the niggardly subject of race. Hehe.

TALKING (INTELLIGENTLY) ABOUT RACE

Talking about "race" doesn't make you a racist, anymore than talking about Nazism makes you a Nazi. And so far, both on the side of the Asian Americans whom I labeled racist as well as the web site that leverages a clear apologist argument for ideologies of racist imperialism – the strategies have been striking similar. The #2 way to defend oneself from the most serious of accusations? Call me racist for simply pointing a clear pattern of thought, racist language, or actual racial slurs. Or even set up a straw man argument to defend oneself, as the owner of Occidentalism.org did:

I guess I'm supposed to be the person who is making unfounded assumptions based on appearance? Or the fact that the owner or Occidentalism.org is white? Well, I guess that's how the blog owner understands it, but none of what I said about his site seems to fall into a racist pattern of thinking. I didn't make any categorical assumptions, or try to falsely interpolate what this person I don't know might be thinking. I am responding to the vast reams of material published to the world wide web, materials that ostensibly represent the opinions of the sole writer on the blog, "Matt."

As I clearly stated from the beginning, I consider his site racist (and sexist) because of 1) what he says and 2) the nearly unbroken pattern of how he treats his topics. I will describe this in far greater detail below, but let me make it crystal clear that I am not judging his site by the color of the blogger's skin, but by the vicious content of his site's character. My blog exists in Korea amongst mostly white and Korean American expats; among these, the largest and most influential seem to be those run by white men and are ones I respect and read daily – the Marmot's Hole, the Lost Nomad, and GI Korea are a few examples. I read them mostly for their news value, as they aren't heavy commentary oriented. In those blogs, the bloggers tend to get out of the way and let the stories speak for themselves; if anything, they are great news sources for me.

My blog is one dealing with commentary, mostly focused around harsh social criticism. I come from an academic department and intellectual tradition of social critique – I went to a crunchy boarding school, a bleeding-heart liberal university known as "the Berkeley of the East Coast", and then followed that up by actually attending Berkeley for graduate school – ground-zero for liberals, hippies, and student protest. I lived in the city the Black Panthers sprung up in, where they passed out more breakfasts to kids than bullets. I then went and entered the Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies, which surely tops my liberal points nearly off the scale; still, it is reassuring to me that my views didn't quite fit in there, either, as I was often considered "conservative" compared to my more activist-oriented peers. Mix that all in with a healthy interest in Korea, which was quickened by and matured during my initial 2-year stint here in the 90's and then further deepened by my academic and artistic work here over the last 4 years – and you get some social criticism coming out of me here as well. It's my dissertation, it's my job, it keeps my mental gears rolling.

But the difference between a site like mine, which can get as harsh any of the sharp-tongued foreigners here whose hackles are raised by certain things here, and a site such as Occidentalism's is in tone and emphasis. What's the meta-argument here? What apparent agenda does the blog have? What implicit assumptions informs the logic that is at work in the posts, when dealing with certain subjects? And who is implicitly being argued to be the "center?" This last questions begs the question of "on what basis are criticisms being made?" These are all crucial questions. I ask them to myself all the time and try to check myself from stepping over the subtle line separating constructive social critique from vindictive cultural bashing. The line is sometimes fuzzy and sometimes easy to cross, but I think my site is clearly on one side, while Occidentalism.org's site is on the other.

And that's fine. It's a free Internet (thus far) and people can write whatever the hell they want on their blogs. But if I see a major expat blog that I think is straight-up racist, I'm gonna say something. And given the fact that there aren't a lot of trained academics, freelance writers, and working journalists out there, I decided to say my piece about a site I think is pure of negativity, vitriol, and thinly-veiled racism and misogyny. By thinly-veiled, the site owner will swear up and down that he is not racist – but actions...posts...speak louder than words uttered in defense against the accusation that even racists don't want levied against them anymore – the label that exactly describes them.

The funny thing is that I've been observing Occidentalism.org for a long time and the initial iteration of this post was motivated in the observations I'd made about that site. In pointing out the obvious racist mode in which certain groups are viewed and represented on that site, I've inevitably been labeled a "racist" myself. But I have to point out that talking about race and racism, contrary to what a lot of logically confused and theoretically challenged commenters seem to think, does not mean one is racist.

And just when can you call something "racist?" Does it have to be only when someone is hanging a rope over a tree, or yelling epithets at you in white sheets, or just when you call for the deportation of all Muslims from Britain, likening them to the subhuman Morlocks of Wells' The Time Machine, who eat the flesh of the English Eloi? But hey. I'm the crazy one, right? Let Matt of Occidentalism.org speak for himself, here in response to the London bombings:

The Eloi (British) live well but do not react when their fellow Eloi are hurt.

Morlocks that feast on the flesh of the Eloi. Why dont the Eloi deport them?

I guess that comparing an entire group of people to subhuman monsters doesn't meet the definition of "racist." I guess the only true racists are those walking around with shaved heads burning synagogues or lynching black folks while wearing white sheets.

Well, here's another doozie, made in defense of posts like these:

"That's quite a sweeping, stereotypical and prejudicial assumption on your part. It would be quite self-serving and incredible indeed to assume that people like Matt do not have sensitivities about racism abroad as well. Several Caucasion Americans I know, having experienced blantant racism here for the first time, have become quite sensitized to civil rights and feminist issues back home. The very fact that Matt is in fact taking an extremely anti-racist stand in a most uncompromising manner, which is certainly in the tradition of a Malcom X, would lead me to believe that he is also extremely sensitive to African American issues as well. Why don't stop projecting your prejudices on him long enough to just ask him yourself where his sensitivities lie on civil rights issues?"

I see that mass deportation of an entire religious group from a country is quite a "sensitive" stance to have in relation to issues of race and rights.

Oh, well. I guess I'm just crazy. But don't just take my word for it. I'll let his site speak for itself.

SOME PATTERNS

Here is an exhaustive overview of all the posts in two of the major categories on Occidentalism.org. Let's see how the site's owner, perhaps as a white man who has "experienced blantant racism here for the first time, [and has] become quite sensitized to civil rights and feminist issues" posts. Let's see how much "in the tradition of a Malcom X" these posts are regarding the groups in question, all of whom experience or had experienced racist discrimination from the very groups whom Matt's site seemed hellbent on defending, or at least putting into a "good light." In journalism and in the law, painting someone "in a bad light" or "defamatory" way can get you sued and found guilty of libel or slander.

Surely, I can make the accusation of "racist" stick? Or do you have to be a card-carrying member of a White Power group for that to happen. It's not just about using trigger-word epithets or race riots breaking out, but also about emphasis, tone, and how you want to paint people. So here's a complete list of post titles in the category "Racist Industrial Complex," in which apparently, only Koreans, French Muslims, and African-Americans people are apprently "racist":

"Metropolitician on Occidentalism"
Defense against me. I'm just crazy.

"Asashoryu calls Korean journalist ‘kimchi bastard’"
"Funny" story about an admittedly rude journalist who gets "put in his place."

"What will Koreans do if the US attacks North Korea?"
Crazy Koreans hate Japan.

"Dokdo is Korean territory” - Japanese language calendar issued by SK government"
More crazy Koreans hating Japan.

"혐일류! 嫌日流! The Hate Japan Wave!"
Defending a rightist tract.

"A final word on Kenkanryu"
More on that tract.

"Real race hate"
Racist Korean song by DJ DOC.

"Kenkanryu in the New York Times"
Defense of the tract.

"Islamic riots in France"
Riots break out in France for no apparent reason. Ah, when it comes to white folks, history is not necessary. Japanese folks, neither. But Koreans and Chinese had better relearn it all.

"Fake Atrocity Photos III"
Chinese baby in 1937 bombing.

"Now THIS is nuts - kill whitey!"
Crazy black people.

"Japanese Ambassador given a public dressing down by the South Korean Foreign Minister"
Rude powerful Korean people.

"Korean reaction to Yasukuni visit"
Crazy Korean man eats Japanese flag.

"Fabrication! More Korean Media Lies"
Korean media makes up apology.

"Dokdo apology cakes?!"
Crazy Japanese lady is so for "being sorry for Koreans about events she had nothing to do with."

"Ungrateful Korea? 恩をあだで返す韓国? 배은망덕 한국?"
Ungrateful Koreans. MacArthur is God.

"Koreans crack down hard on cultural exchange"
All Korean men are crazy because some sent Matt harassing messages.

"Crisis of Journalistic Integrity in the Korean Media"
Bad Korean media.

"Google gets it wrong again"
Why is it definitely the Sea of Japan and not the East Sea?

"Korean Church Members in Sydney Beat Girl"
Matt's unceasing concern for the well-being of Koreans in Australia.

"Japanese Repentence Marathon?"
Crazy Koreans want Japanese to apologize.

"Google Earth Calls ‘Sea of Japan’ the ‘East Sea’"
Of course, Japan is right.

"Outrageous anti foreigner article"
Of course, racist Koreans.

"Fake Atrocity Photos II"
Fake beheading.

"Korean and Japanese Soldiers in Iraq: Korean Soldier Demonstrates ‘Friendship’ 合成写真 합성 사진"
Crazy Korean in Iraq asserts Korean claim to Tokdo.

"Fake Atrocity Photos"
Faked rapes by Japanese soldiers.

"Korean Superiority"
Crazy Koreans being nationalistic in textbook.

"Asahi TV on Korean childrens drawings"
Crazy Korean kids.

"Well educated Koreans Anti American"
Smart crazy Koreans.

"Anti Foreigner feeling in Korea"
Matt defends right to fuck Korean girls. As if there's nothing better to blog about.

"Emperors visit to Saipan controversy on marmot"
Matt defends the reasonable Japanese people.

"Muninn on Korean Children’s Drawings"
Crazy Korean kids.

"Korean media reports on hate drawings"
Reasonable Korean media reports, but hateful Korean commenters.

"Korea-Japan Friendship Year"
Korean suits walking on Japanese flag, ajumma cutting off her finger.

"More kiddie hate pics"
Crazy Korean kids.

"Teaching History in Korean schools…"
No, Japan has no issues with history and textbooks.

Now, in the "Finger-Chopping Wacky" section, again, the people who are reasonable and normal are either white or Japanese, with blacks, and Koreans being, well..."wacky." For Muslims in Britain, they should all just be deported, according to the "in the spirit of Malcolm X" Occidentalism.org site. Here are the additional entries that were not duplicated above "Racist Industrial Complex" category:

"Another Korean airport protest!"
Spoiled, crazy Koreans.

"Korean Air Seoul to Sydney flight"
Crazy Korean Airlines sign says "East Sea."

"Dont canonize the living"
Crazy Korean scientists and people.

"Hilarious happening"
Crazy black people mad at the word "niggardly." White people have never been unreasonable about race.

"Which side?"
Crazy, traitorous Korean American.

"Czechs bite back"
Crazy Koreans get mad over graffitti.

"Bitter South African humor"
Murderous black South Africans. The only thing we hear about them on the site.

"More British Piggies"
Crazy Muslims in England. (Note: cross-referenced in the category "War on Terror." Interesting. In a post about a disagreement over religious sensitivity, Matt seems to associate the religion of Islam itself with terrorists. Nice.

"Britain pays tribute to Islam"
Crazy Islamists. And apparently, in Matt's eyes, this post also belongs in "The War on Terror."

"Mans best friend"
Matt is big enough to say he "doesn't mind" that Koreans eat dogs. But let's make them look crazy anyway!

"Registration System"
Crazy Koreans trolling on the site.

"Bizarre and Absurd - Britain Fights the War on Terror"
The Brits are crazy wimps for respecting the Muslim religion. He likens the Brits to the Eloi and the Muslims to the subhuman Morlocks, who "eat the flesh of the Eloi..." so his logical question is "why don't the Eloi deport them?"

"Koreans - Original?"
Crazy, unoriginal, derivative Koreans.

"Violent Korean airport protests not isolated"
Crazy Koreans in airports.

"Korean Airport Protest"
Koreans are crazy.

"Japan prepares to invade Korea…"
Crazy NORTH Koreans.

But still I know you need more than that to make the term "racist" stick, because anyone who dares even use the term had better have a videotaped recording with multiple witnesses and expert medical testimony to...oh, wait – that didn't help Rodney King. So I guess I gotta get more nitty gritty wid it, get academic real quick one time.

SOME DEFINITIONS

Since people tend to freak out when the term is used, and start calling everyone within shouting distance a "racist" as well, as if to take the accuser down with the ship, let me define what I'm talking about. So, here's a definition, which is similar to most of the entries I've found in several major dictionaries:

racism |ˈrāˌsizəm|
noun
• The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.

My definition, however, is one rooted in a much more formal thinking and academic training about the tricky concept of "race," and is a bit more precise. Here's my working definition:

racism
• Any ideology supporting a majority group's domination of an economic, political, and social power structure based on notions of race, ethnicity, or religion.

(And a little explanation...)
Hitler is generally considered King Anti-Semite and also an arch-racist. The particular ways in which Jews were racialized – mostly through the scientific racism of eugenics –and subsequently persecuted is actually the major reason Hitler is generally considered a "racist" as well as hater of Jews. Indeed, most of the time any religious group is seriously persecuted, there is some degree of racialization as well. Hence the conflation of "moor" and "Muslim" in medieval Spain, because of the fact of some physical differences– as well as religious one – between Christians and Muslims at the time. In the same way, "Arab" (which is more of an ethnicity, e.g. there are non-Muslim "Arabs") and "Muslim" (which is a religion, e.g. there are many non-"Arab" Muslims) confused by many who conflate the categories of Muslim and "terrorist." Hence, I inject a bit of the colloquial usage of the term "racism" and also include religion within it.

And in fact, the Ku Klux Klan uses the tactic of racialization when attacking not just say, African-Americans, but also Jews and immigrants (read "Mexican") as well. Regardless of the specific of the case – for example "black" is also extended to include South Asians in Britain yet are considered "colored" in many African countries – these groups are racialized in very similar ways. In fact, as well as in practice, the terms used to describe these processes are pretty general, anyway; how Jews were set up by German ideology as both an internal and exterior menace-as-scapegoat is socio-historically specific, but it completely parallel with the processes that created "Black" as a group in the United States in relation to their economic utility as slaves; take also the anti-Black sentiment in France, which is not only based in skin color, but also on many of those people's religion and immigrant status as well (which it is not in the United States).

But the processes of otherization and social discrimination are the same. Perhaps that's one reason that racism is a catch-all – and admittedly way too overused and liberally applied – phrase. In reality, we don't really have a solid word for anti-Christian, anti-national, anti-belief...ical. They all sound awkward and repetitive, especially since they're mostly made by tacking on the prefix "anti" in place of the group in question. Not many words have the pure power and purchase of "racism" – which is why I'm explaining myself so much in detail here.

ideology
• A system of ideas supporting a social structure or rationalizing a social system.

(And a little explanation...)
This is another part of the set of theoretical concepts I teach to my students so that they can make sense out of the large body of history I teach. History taught without major organizing, explanative concepts is nothing more than a jumble of names, dates, and facts strung together in a long narrative, one that students often find boring. Especially when Korean students come across the American government policy towards Native Americans or the South's system of racialized, chattel slavery, they often have trouble making sense out of it. Similarly, they have trouble making sense of why and how Japan engaged in its exploitation and brutal treatment of their own country.

Simply put, I tell them that ideology is the mental "glue" that keeps any social system working. It's everywhere and usually self-serving. It is also a useful tool to come in to fill the void created by the contradictions created by the "cognitive dissonance" that is the result of when you do things that violate your social system's own moral code. Put concretely, a lot of Korean students ask me "How could such a system as slavery be created and continue to exist?" An American might simply answer, "Well, that's because of racism" or "Whites looked down on blacks so..." But that really doesn't answer the question. It's becomes a circular explanation, really: "Well, some whites mistreated blacks because they were racist" (and they were racist because they mistreated blacks).

But the concept of "cognitive dissonance" offers an active, generalizable explanation. Given that there was a huge economic incentive to utilize slaves – yet there were ample bases upon which to feel pretty bad about doing so (initially, under English law, no Christian could be enslaved, there were ample religious reasons to find it barbaric or beneath a "civilized" Englishman, or the simple fact that one wouldn't want to be treated that way) – you have to create a reason to not merely justify it materially, but make you believe there's nothing wrong in doing so. Even beyond that, there is a lot of psychological incentive to make yourself believe that you are actually right in behaving the way you do. So, in order to justify the system of slavery, we get ideology that argues that Africans weren't humans, debates within the Catholic church as to whether they even had souls, that keeping them in bondage was akin to a "civilizing mission" or "white man's burden" to take care of them, or that they actually benefitted from the slave system because obviously they were too "savage" to govern themselves.

The process is the same across the board, even though there are exceptions and cases where it doesn't seem to apply so well, which is what makes academic research, debate, and history itself so fun. So in the case of the Native Americans, white settlers' desire for Native land (which was kicked into overdrive later by the labor-intensive crop cotton) was a clear motivator for rationalizing away their destruction and the cognitive dissonance created by violating treaties, or killing women and children as part of westward expansion. But making the same argument for explaining the why of the Jewish Holocaust is tougher. We all know what happened; yet the why is harder in this case. Obviously, it wasn't merely taking something from Jews that was the overriding factor explaining the Holocaust; in this case, the economic argument is pretty weak. One controversial historian, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, writing in Hitler's Willing Executioners : Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust actually argues that the "Jew" simply became a symbol of all that is wrong with German society – well before even the 20th century – the classic scapegoat, but that as Germany's problems worsened atop a centuries-old, pre-existing anti-Semitism, it evolved to the point of becoming an "eliminationist anti-Semitism" that became the specific actions we call the Holocaust. Here, the cognitive dissonance model must be much more carefully and complexly applied. But I digress a bit here.

So, to put all this together, I am talking about racism as a clear ideology, a belief system, that supports a certain ("race"-based) set of power relations. It's the ideology, it's what you believe – it's the "belief-glue" that justifies and holds together the "structure," which is made up of the government, economy, and all the social practices that are part of it. To call someone a "racist" is to be a person who supports or espouses such an ideology.

But in the present, post-Nazi-era, post-American Civil Rights movement, post-South African apartheid world, the word "racist" itself has earned a pretty bad reputation.

Nowadays, even the most ardent racists – card-carrying members of the world's most famous and long-lived "terrorist" organization – the Ku Klux Klan (forget Al Queda) – now dodge the term. David Duke himself, as well as any sheet-wearing KKK member who's ever appeared on the Geraldo Rivera or Jerry Springer shows, now says "I'm not racist. I'm just fighting for white rights." The funny thing is – I mean, this is really, really ironic, people – is that they've unconciously been forced to utilize post-Civil Rights Movement "rights" discourse in order to defend their discriminatory policies and practices; nowadays, they call affirmative action programs that try to address gender and racial discrimination "reverse racism" and now see white men in American society as having lost basic rights of citizenship. In other words, the Ku Klux Klan itself has to drop its talk of plain old discrimination and has to talk within a discourse of rights in order to even be listened to anymore. The old discourses of racial hierarchy with whites at the top has been, almost inevitably, dropped altogether for the more acceptable argument based on equality, in that now whites are allegedly no longer being treated equal and are themselves the afflicted class.

But everyone's missing one, small thing. It's easy not to notice, but the one thing that many racial minorities in America feel the effects of all the time, much more than distinct and specific incidents of "racism." More than people yelling "Chink, go home!" or burning crosses on the lawns of black folks (umm, both things that still happen, by the way), a lot of our experiences with "race" take place on much less dramatic terms. I think things have "gotten better" because no longer do black people live in direct fear of being lynched, have to drink out of "colored" water fountains, nor have to sit in the back of the bus.  But does that mean "racism" as a problem has gone away? Of course not. But nowadays, it's harder to make the accusation; hell, these days, even racists deny being such. And although the days of Jim Crow and apartheid are gone, racism still exists – although it is now generally practiced "under-the-table." So I'm not even going to go there. No – more than the obvious (or not-so-obvious) specter of racism, there is one thing that even some well-meaning white folks altogether fail to get: the power and pervasiveness of white privelege.

"WHITE PRIVILEGE"

What is "white privelege?" Just to be clear that I'm not making this up and I'm not on some "anti-white" rampage, here are three major texts in the brand-new field of "Whiteness Studies," a field populated not by rampaging, crazy "people of color," but mostly by white people.

The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, by David R. Roediger

"Whiteness of a Different Color : European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race" (Matthew Frye Jacobson)

"The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics" (George Lipsitz)

All three books are smart, are assigned on college campuses all the time now, and are not apologetic "I'm so sorry I'm white" tracts about identity, but highly analytical, solid work of history and theory. They point out not just how so-called "people of color" (a term I don't like and try not to use) were racially constructed, but they also deal with the central part of the equation, one usually left out of most everyday thinking about "race" –the fact that all these categories came to exist in relation to one another and in real, identifiable, and linked historical circumstances. One cannot understand "Asian" or "Asian American," or "Black," "Indian," or any other racial category without also understanding how "white" – as the central group and concept – came to be constructed.

This may seem like, "duh!" – but even the racial terms and the way most Americans think about race itself belies the fact that we assume "white" to be in a way unraced in that white people "don't have a real culture." Indeed, white people are not included in the term "people of color," which again unintentionally reinforces the idea of whiteness being "normal" even as we seem to define the seeming specialness of those who possess "color," which is actually often meant to mean "culture." Additionally, people seem to define "culture" as something concrete and exotic that is possessed, like a commodity that can be preserved, lost, or forgotten. On the contrary, real "culture" is all around, and something that I like to define as simply the markers of a way of living. For example, what is "Korean culture?" Hanboks, fan dances, folk villages, ancient jars in museums? In this sense, anyone can "learn" such "culture" easily. But isn't taking the bus or waiting in line or getting bumped into on the street part of Korean "culture?" Or living in high-rise apartments, long nights drinking with co-workers, or nowadays, trips to Emart?

What I'm obviously saying is that "culture" is best defined as the lived experience and mode of everyday life. You can use all kinds of adjectives to talk about what "typifies" modern Korean life in the present, but my point is that what people are generally talking about when they mean "culture" is actually "tradition" – so-called culture frozen and preserved in time such that it is by definition no longer very relevant to everyday life. Hence, you don't see people in subways wearing hanboks, breaking out into fan dances in the middle of the street, or using elaborate pots to store kim chee in the ground.

But that's the "tradition" or "traditional culture" that people have in mind around the world these days, even and especially in America, where a town or school's "multicultural food festival" usually means Chinese dumplings, Korean kalbi, a sampling of Ethiopian cuisine, and maybe a recent European immigrant family might throw in some borscht or something if their hearts are still really close to home. On college campuses, there are a million ethnic clubs, most "freshmen of color" have some chance to find a place to instantly "belong" somewhere, and identity itself becomes a virtual hot commodity in the early 20's. And in this sense, many young white students, who have the same desire to "find oneself" and learn more about the world, sort of get left out in the cold. I've seen it happen a million times, and it's pretty unfortunate.

But this is where it gets interesting. Like "love, actually," white people's "culture" is all around. It is the dominant culture, and since whites still do hold onto the majority of social, economic, and political power in the United States – no matter what a relative few numbers of minorities in higher positions of cultural, economic, or political authority might seem to indicate, or the brief socializing "advantage" that college freshmen "of color" might seem to have  – the dominant culture of the US is defined by whiteness itself. It certainly might not feel this way, much as a fish swimming though its bowl doesn't sense the water; but everything from Britney Spears to 50 Cent, NASCAR to NBA, Abercrombie & Fitch to FUBU – everything that has been or become mainstream has done so largely because of the whims of white folks. For better or for worse, this isn't a value judgement at all; it's merely a statement of fact. Whites still hold the dominant reins of power, although minority groups are wielding more of it these days, but mostly as consumers who vote with their wallets.

And white privelege doesn't end at America's borders, nor is it solely American. The power of Hollywood media images, the West and particularly America's military might, economic influence, and overall cultural hegemony extends to all parts of the world. The leftovers of Britain's erstwhile empire, as well as that of France's, have left similar post-colonial impressions on peoples all over the world. And especially in regards to the two particular cultural/military/economic colonies of South Korea and Japan, the bright, shining light of American cultural hegemony still burns brightest, which is mostly what a lot of young, proud Korean kids react to when they make their superficial displays of so-called "anti-Americanism."

As much as many Western expats whine about it in Korea, the general scapegoating of everything bad with Korea as the fault of America and the rest of the world is proof positive of that, for better or for worse. Of course, nobody likes to see their flag being burned and tanks overturned on Korean "Liberation Day," especially given the historical irony of how Korea gained its independence, but I think a lot of these Korean college kids are reacting – quite negatively and unconstructively, I agree – to the continuing presence of American power and the reminder of white privilege, mixed in with a heaping helping of jingoistic nationalism and simple-minded thinking. But the point of this discussion isn't to talk about anti-Americanism, but rather to draw attention the fact of white (American) privilege as one of the causes of frustration amongst Korean youth, who find themselves in a very different Korea than their grandparents knew in the 1950's.

What do I really mean by "privilege?" I shouldn't even have to get into the advantages of being male in Korean society, not to mention having an American passport, and then having white skin to boot. Or what about the obvious fact that most Koreans – as well as a lot of other people in the world – conflate the concepts of "American" and "white" into one concept? When I came to Korea in 1994, riding high on the privilege of coming on a diplomatic A-3 visa as a Fulbright, a blue American passport, I entered a nation that as of that time had never seen a foreigner in the countryside except perhaps as an American soldier, a missionary, or even less likely, a Peace Corps worker. At that time, "foreigner" meant "American," as there still wasn't a high awareness of "guest workers" who were 1) not English teachers, and 2) not white. Being a man, a "foreign object," and on a prestigious grant supported by both the American and Korean governments meant that I benefitted from all kinds of statuses; I was treated like royalty.

People took me out to dinner, stopped me on the street to ask if I was lost; I turned down $40-per-hour jobs that would pay me just to speak my native tongue, men I didn't even know wanted to buy me drinks and give me their business cards, women wanted to meet me, sometimes even more than that. Was I treated like this at home? No way. I was smart enough to star getting "rock star syndrome" and think about what was behind all this; although it was perfectly obvious, it was, as Koreans like to say, totally 신기해 – strange yet fascinating.

And yes, I'm talking about America and it's great influence in Korea. But don't think that white Canucks, Brits, Kiwis, Aussies, or various Europeans teaching English as well, are all off the hook. Of course, the demand of English itself is based largely on America's rise to international power and wielding great influence in the world, most especially in Korea and Japan. Anyone who makes a buck on or in English benefits.

And yes, I admit there's a downside – there's always a downside. In my case, back in 1994, when I was more recognized as "Black," since that's the only thing people assumed since I'm obviously not "white" (nowadays, Korean people think Filipino, Indonesian, Hawaiian, etc.), middle school girls would sometimes pass by and whisper 무서워 – "scary" – or cars might stop, or, as happened while crossing the Cheju National University campus, two young girls actually pointed and yelled "Look! A black man!" as if they had spotted Denzel Washington himself, in-the-flesh, walking towards them. And the only reason I say that is because several people even said I looked like Denzel Washington, which said more about how few black people they'd ever seen in real life than anything flattering about my appearance, especially given my decidedly unchisled features, protruding belly, and wild hair. Sometimes people would insist I sing popular R&B songs because of course black people can all sing, dance, and play basketball extremely well, which I proved a disappointingly false assumption to my students in the boys' middle school I worked at, on the day I gave in to their urgings to shoot a game of hoops on the court with them. To a lot of people, I revealed, just by existing, that not all black people were like Boyz-to-Men, Michael Jordan, or Denzel, but everybody seemed to get over it all right.

And to those commentors who seemed to think themselves some kind of authorities on the Black-Experience-in-Korea™and all too eager to educate me – exactly three times in Korea have I heard people utter the slur "깜둥이" – and I assure you that I speak and understand Korean quite well, which will surely be a surprise to the commentor who sneeringly asked, "Do you even speak Korean?" To him, I will add that yes, I understand the connotative differences between "깜씨" and "흑인", as well as the more "politically correct" but seldom-used term and translation straight from the American: "아프리카계 미국인".  I don't need a white – or Korean – "expert" – to educate me about my own experience. Such condescension is quite unnecessary, thank you. 그래서 그런 잘 못 된 가정들부터 좀 없애세요.

So yes, I've had my share of frustration with Korean folks, been harassed on subways, given dirty looks by guys because I had a Korean female companion, all the standard complaints; I've seen all the usual suspects, and I know what to expect. I know I'm not going to get a fair shake when the police come, even if I am attacked, because the foreigner is always in the wrong when it comes to the po-po in Korea. I don't feel that the structure of Korea was made for me, I don't feel "safe" as a member of society here, no matter how much in taxes I pay or how much good work I do. To some drunk ajussi with an ax to grind on the subway, I'm a "dirty Yankee." When the police come if there's a scuffle, I know who's going to be held responsible from the first – me, the foreigner. Yeah, I already know that. But I also already knew that back home in America, when I'd be pulled over, asked for my license and registration, then experience the pleasure of being asked to step outside the car while it is searched. Me, the fat grad student whose never done any illegal drugs (no, not even pot), who likes Star Trek conventions, and plays computer games – bent over, hands on the car, legs apart, butt in the air. No probable cause, no reason to suspect that I'm a gangster or a drug dealer – yet the po-po are searching my car. So my "shock" and indignation isn't less in Korea when I'm treated unfairly; it's just tempered with a broader experience of being discriminated against. No big surprise, gentlemen.

This is the ACLU graphic that Matt – or whoever made the public service announcement that came from Occidentalism.org and was at the top of this post – was apparently inspired by. The spirit in which this ad asks the question is important to think about here. No one is simply assuming that Matt's site is racist because of his appearance (I have never seen him) or the fact that he is "white". If we are to get basic about how we judge people, Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't say it was bad to judge people – there are reasons to do so. If I claim that I judged the site Occidentalism.org, it's because of the content of its character (or lack thereof) and not because of the color of the site owner's skin. It's because of what he says, how he says it, and what his apparent project is, as indicated by the patterns of the posts and the decontextualized way in which almost all material that's alleged or implied to be representative of certain minority groups in relation to the rational and reasonable center.

We're talking about privilege and power, people – not vulgar prejudice. Matt's site wants to reduce the conversation to that, as if he's just being unfairly judged and attacked because he is white. But that's far, far from the case; he's being constantly criticized because of the views he apparently holds and makes a point to espouse in a widely read forum. He's a public figure; whining about being

Yet in Asia, my experience at being treated "better" in certain respects on the basis of my racial/national difference is definitely new, whereas for most white people, it's a mix of having even more such advantages based on their skin color, mixed in with the distinctly new and negative feeling of experiencing some negative experiences because of the shape of their noses, the amount of pigment in their skin, negative and unfair portrayals in the media, rude treatment by the police, people whispering when you come in the room, little kids pointing, etc. Well, all I have to say is, welcome to the club, my fellow (temporary) racial minorities. And I accede the "aggrieved status" of white males in Asia in only a limited sense; because even though there are some irritating aspects about being seen as an "Other" – whites enjoy the rare status of being an Other while also quite a bit of privilege that can assuage any slights to one's person or bruises to the ego.

What the hell, ask you, do I mean by this? Well, let's start with the blatantly and undeniably obvious point of privilege shared by almost every single one of us over here working less hours for the same money as back home, or enjoying a higher standard of living than we'd ever enjoy working the same 20-35 hours per week back in Perth, London, or New York  City. And is it real, hard work? Does it require great ambition, higher analytical skills, or years of scholastic training? While I'm not trying to belittle the work of good teachers, come on – it's teaching English. It may be annoying, but it's an easy job.

Even more in Japan and Korea, the long reach of Anglo-American power is felt largely through the real need but even more intensely felt fever to learn, improve, and even perfect one's English language skills. So the the majority of all of us over here teaching, editing, or just making money talking as a native channeler of the Magical Language of Power™ directly benefit from these structural relationships created by our influential governments, their associated economies, backed by their powerful armies. You may think I'm some kind of radical or "conspiracy theorist" for stating what I consider to be perfectly obvious, but I certainly don't see many Koreans or Japanese lining up to learn Norwegian, Swahili, or even French. Nowadays, a new, non-Western power is starting to flex its own political, economic, and military muscles in a way felt most directly throughour East Asia – so we see a spike in the numbers of people starting to learn Chinese in our two favorite countries, Korea and Japan. The world's a-changing. Go figure, right? But don't go packing your bags yet, fellow foreigners – we still gotta lotta clout left.

So, at this point, the fact of the benefit of being able to channel the Magical Language of Power™ should be pretty clear. But with the added advantage of white skin and say an American or Canadian passport, you don't even have to have a high school diploma to make much more money here than at home. I'm not "bashing" – this is a fact. Not many people, in the many countries in the world, can make a living just speaking her native tongue. Nowhere in the world is the demand anything on the level it is for English; people are not jonesing for Gujerati, Swahili, Spanish, or even French native speakers. That fact is linked to the power of those countries themselves. The privilege of being white and from these countries is inherent in the way these people come to places such as Japan or Korea. No one, no matter how "good" or "bad," can escape from the fact of this structural relationship.

And then there is the additional draw that everyone knows about but few like to put into words – the incredible sexual license that comes with being male, western, and white in a place like Korea. (See Matt's "Korea Story" and "Porn Star" posts, reprinted in their entirety, for reference and your masturbatory pleasure.) I myself benefit from the first two statuses – men in Korea enjoy a social mobility and power that women as a group do not; being a native speaker of English gives me an incredible amount of increased economic and social power; being having white skin on top of all this is icing on the cake. That last level of aesthetic/sexual power is partially created by incessant media images of whiteness-as-center; it partially comes from the direct colonial relationship with mostly whites from the end of WWII and the ongoing occupation of this country; it is additionally complicated by the fact that Koreans picked up on the racial hierarchies evident from the US in the 1950's until the present, e.g. black GI's were not as high up the social ladder as whites.

My whole point here is that no one talks about the heady amount of white privilege that exists in Asia, is linked to the differential treatment of people like Hines Ward – that so many white expat bloggers were some of the first out the door of righteous indignation (as a critique on Korea) about – but what strikes me as interesting is that if one points out the fact of white privilege as related to Western and mostly American power, white expats bristle, hem and haw, and accuse the person who brought it up of being racist him or herself. It amazing, how pointing out issues related to race usually end up in the person being accused of being racist.

Again, I'm not calling all white bloggers out there "racist." What I am saying is that many white expats out there are loathe to acknowledge their own heavy degrees of privilege and power even as a temporary minority in this society – Korea, for example – and bask in the newfound ability to claim aggrieved status in a way that was never possible back home in America, Australia, New Zealand, or even Europe.

As much as the expat community loved to talk about Hines Ward and how it was evidence of Korean racism and "backwards" attitudes, no one talked about the very origins of the differential thinking that resulted in the differential treatment that is the very flip side of that coin: whites here get jobs because they're white; whites get far more polite and preferential treatment because they're white; if you don't think this is actively the case, I'll make the opposite argument, showing how the two are linked: blacks hardly ever get jobs, no matter their qualifications, because they're black; blacks get treated worse because they're black; I won't burden you with a thousand sob stories and the standard litany of racist incidents – I'm sure you've all heard versions of them before and we're all on the same page here.

My point here is that the air is pregnant with white privilege in Korean culture and everyday life. I'm not bitching and moaning, as I understand the reality and have adapted to life quite well here. What I am saying is that to even point out the obvious fact of white privilege – let alone describe a site as racist – is a cardinal sin.

To me, the terms of the debate, even in the foreign expat community, are set mostly by whites. Talk about "racism" only as it applies to Koreans being racist against "us." But if race is brought up as an issue amongst us, you done broke the law. Even on a site that's as racist as a site can be without breaking down and just admitting it for all to see, bringing up the "R" word is going to bring out accusations of all kinds of censorship, left-wing oppression, PC police, etc.

Such is the case with Occidentalism.org. I'm not saying that unless you agree with me on this issue, you're therefore racist; what I do wonder is 1) why is it an illegitimate topic to bring up at without a whole bunch of people losing their minds over it and sending emails threatening to sue me for libel, shut down my site, etc. and 2) on a site that arguably has a lot of questionable material on it – hundreds if not thousands on people have written comments and emails complaining of the same thing – why is the burden of proof on the vast number of people who have problems with material that could reasonably be interpreted as problematic, instead of the site owner himself? He simply assumes a stance of moral shock and indignation and refused to ever debate the issues at hand.

Why does the site continue to receive so much support, especially given the fact that it has never really squarely addressed the accusations against it? Why is it a sin to simply talk about the big, white elephant in the room? Read further down to a more recent commenter who asked very good questions and received no answer to any of them.

BACK TO OCCIDENTALISM – A FEW THINGS

This particular page is actually a fascinating example of what I've been talking about, as well as something that shows the overall pattern and point of by the site, which is to prove, of course, Japan's inherent cultural superiority over Korea.

On this page of the site, the author dredges up images that were actually used in decades-old imperialist propaganda, in which great ideological efforts were made to show that Koreans were not only inferior, but sexually decadent as well. And what is even more stunning is how, on the very same page, we are treated to his ogling of a stunning, but 11-year-old Japanese AV model, whom he then goes on to laud as a force that could tend to reduce anti-Japanese sentiment in Asia. The ultimate cultural export, this image of fetishized, sexualized innocence is then juxtaposed against the representation of Korean women as whores, which is a link he draws with his picture of Korean prostitutes from the colonial period, which is again coupled with recent news reports present day Korean prostitution. Coincidentally, sexual consumption is also the only mode in which the site owner can even begrudgingly admit to anything "positive" about anything Korean. Korea is essentially not good for anything but as an object to symbolically (and actually) "fuck" vis-a-vis its women; but in every other regard and in every other representation on his site, Koreans are petty, illogical, defensive, vicious,

Overall, the page is a tour-de-force in rightist Japanese propaganda, as the author, in one fell swoop, reasserts both old and new-school claims of Japanese cultural superiority, implies that Korean women are really the moral agents of their own sexual enslavement, and priveleges the virtues of "pure" Japanese womanhood. Wow.

And I hadn't seen pictures like that since researching anti-Japanese ideology for my doctoral candidate exams and my thesis (when, at one time, I was actually hard at work on it). Semiotically, there is a clear juxtaposition and inherently condescending comparison between the only two overtly sexualized images of women on the page.

To address a point made by "Lucy L" that other sites show images of Korean women, I think we're making a pretty sloppy comparison here. There's a difference between posting pictures of women whom men find sexually attractive, Korean or whatever ethnicity, and writing/representing them in a pattern that becomes offensive. It's not how much clothes are bared or what pictures are shown, but the fact that the only way Korea is represented on that site is in terms of their sexuality, apologizing for the history of militarized sexual slavery by focusing so much on Korean women in the sex industry, then and now, that their having "deserved" what they got becomes a strong implication. I guess you never read that post, either. His "racism" works the same way – most of the more simple-minded viewers just say, "Show me where Matt says he hates Korean women or Korean people." He doesn't do that. But the pattern of what he posts about are astoundingly consistent and evident of a profound racism and misogyny. You are looking for some "damning proof," a smoking gun. I say, it's right there in front of your face, if you step back and look at the trees for the forest, to turn a metaphor on its head.

Then there's the clearly rightist and sentimental song that is typical of the conservative stance to just "forget" what happened – man, will those Koreans stop whining, already? What's left out is that while we are busy crying over the "humanity" of those who committed some of the worst war crimes in world history – but never apologized and atoned for them in the way that postwar Germany did, they're asking the rest of Asia to just let bygones be bygones.

"As my tribute to the day and to peace, I would like to offer up a sad Japanese song about the war. Listening to the song, you realise that even men sent off to die still had hopes and dreams, and were human beings not just killing machines. It is called ‘tokkoutai bushi’ (right click and save to download). Lets forgive and forget, and look to good relations in the future rather than dwelling in the past."

No, this site is not at all apologist for the Japanese Imperial days of yore. I wonder what Jews would think of an apologist for German activities during WWII, admonishing the Jews to just stop "dwelling in the past."

OK -

1) I'm not saying there aren't crazy Korean sites and a million more über-nationalist ones. I'm not saying there ain't any racism against black people here in Korea. But here's the key question – since the case is similar for blacks living in Japan, why no posts making the same critique in Japan? But when it comes to Korean and China, they are the sole recipients of the attack.

A READER CHIMES IN

Let me reprint, in digested form, the very good points made by "Not Today." She breaks it down:

The claims he makes or refutes (or generally just insinuates) on the site can be argued out. Some claims touch on legitimate issues that should be discussed. That he raises such issues is not the point. The fact that he criticises Korean culture or society is equally not the point – I find myself a critic of many aspects of Korean culture and society, this is not why I find this site disturbing. What I find disturbing about Matt and this site is the apparent blindness to the racist perspective he himself is coming from *given* his demonstrated ability to detect racism, and prejudice and hypocrisy. Apart from the racism he directs out, his very adeptness in picking out racism or prejudice or hypocrisy in those whom he attacks is what he hangs the credibility of his site on and what attracts people to his site. That he can demonstrate sensitivity to subtle, and not so subtle, nuances of racial prejudice and hypocrisy in others but is seemingly unable to see the truth in the criticisms that are made about himself, however well reasoned and articulated, makes me suspicious. Surely, it cannot be a matter of simple obtuseness? But he claims he is not racist, so what is going on here?

As a fairly independently minded Korean Australian woman, I don’t condone attempts by conservative elements of Korean society, xenophobic or otherwise, to try and assert control over female sexuality. I don’t have any chip on my shoulder about white men stealing “our” women. There are questions here to be asked about the construction of desire, nationalism and national identity and so on, and I don't attack you for raising them, if that is what you are trying to do.

However, how you write about these issues has the effect of distorting the truth and rules you out as a possible legitimate participant in a discussion, on this and other issues. Yes, there is Korean racism and hypocrisy, just as there is Australian racism and hypocrisy on all kinds of issues, and it should be exposed and critiqued, but what is on your site is something other than that. It is suggestive of a particularly insidious kind of racism and dishonesty. I say insidious because your sensitivity to racial prejudice *in others* suggests that it is a kind of wilful blindness to your own racism, rather than some kind of obtuseness. Until you realise this, whatever you have to say needs first to be considered in light of your racism and examined for what distorting racist perspective it may contain before it can be regarded as a legitimate point of view to be considered properly. To a large extent, you’re nullifying your sometimes quite valid criticisms by your racism.

There is racism out there, online and in real life, and one can find the objectification of women underlying many aspects of popular culture. While I don’t think that your site says anything particularly good about you personally, I can’t say that your site is “the worst” that’s out there. I guess your site particularly disturbs me because firstly, it seems to combine the two, racism and the objectification of women, and you seem to be fixated on Korean women in particular, and secondly, because you try and portray yourself as being part of a larger legitimate critical debate on Korean society and culture, and not just a hater. If you genuinely want to engage in the debate, you need to first do some self-reflection and realise why it is that you can see the racism in others but not in yourself (if you really genuinely cannot see it, that is).

As a Korean Australian woman, I find your site creepy to say the least. I would think that the Korean girls you go out with would feel similarly if they knew about your site. Do you show them your website? I am not going to get into any odious discussion about “preferences” – I only make this last point because I am presuming that you are not so forthcoming about your views to your Korean “friends” or to the Korean girls you meet, and I think you should be. I’d be pleased to know that I am wrong in this, but I don’t hold out much hope.

I judge mainly by what is on your site. I stand by my claim that your attitude towards women generally, and Korean women in particular, as revealed through your site, does not seem to be a very positive one.

What I find troubling about your site is the fact that you do not acknowledge the unfair and prejudicial nature of what it is you are doing on your site. This is what makes it racist, not any particular criticism of Korea on its own. It is really quite interesting to pull apart what it is you are trying to do with your denials. It is as though you’ve set up a test for yourself. To prove that you are not a racist, you are required to walk in a straight line, much like in a random breath test. But the line you are required to walk on is as thin as cotton thread. Generally, you may be able to walk in a straight line, only occasionally stepping off it entirely, but because the line is so thin you overstep the line in every direction with each step you take.

I think someone supporting you made this point: there is no such thing as being completely “unbiased”. I agree with the view that it is through selectivity that we communicate. You can even take it back to the fact/value distinction and the argument that the distinction disappears once the inherent process of selection involved in the construction facts is acknowledged. The process of selection involved in the construction of “facts” may mean that “facts” lose their claim to objectivity, and are in fact values in disguise. To get back to the point, the criteria by which you select which “facts” or claims you present, and the criteria by which you choose to ignore alternative “facts” put forward, seems to indicate an intention to denigrate and put down a culture or “race”.

I may be over-stretching the metaphor, but I think that the line that you’ve drawn, the test you’re applying to yourself when you’re determining whether or not you’re a racist, is very thin indeed. The question that you’re asking yourself is in fact whether or not you are an *obvious* racist, not whether or not you are a racist. As I said in my previous point, you seem to be able to pick up on selectivity, underlying racism and racially prejudiced perspectives in those you attack. Why is it that you are unable to do the same to yourself?

Is it that you want to attack Korean racism and prejudice with your own? Then, you’re just being inconsistent. If you are reacting in kind, then admit that this is the case and don’t deny that you are being racist. Say instead: I am racist but so are they – I am being racist, because they are being racist. That would be more accurate and consistent.

Why is it that you do not refute the racist comments made by your commentators on your site? I don’t accept your denial that you are not racist, but if this is what you believe, then why is it that you do not debate the clearly obvious racists, that are attracted to your site and leave comments, denigrating Korea women among other things. If you can somehow make *your* distinction between what is racist and what is not, real for yourself, then apply that distinction to at least respond the very obvious racist commentary being accumulated on your site. I don’t mean censorship (I’d much rather it was out there than hidden) but respond to it and debate it. Contrast the racism of some of your more obviously racist commentators with what you say you are against. True, they are not your comments, but it is your site. What I seem to see on your site in relation to the comments is that you occasionally add comments encouraging prejudices, and do not post any responses to the clearly racist and hateful comments made. Selective. You seem to have some kind of post where you list the most egregious forms of abuse that you’ve received from racist Koreans; how about setting up a similar post where you put up examples of what you think is clearly not acceptable from the people who come to your site and post comments? Your selectivity, in this, as well as other respects, forms part of the reason why I think your site is racist.

Your site, taken as a whole, functions to propagate racism and hatred. Are you doing it deliberately to attract people to your site?

Last point, I really do think that you would have much to gain if you first acknowledged and then worked towards removing the underlying racism that permeates your site. As I say, it is not your desire to be critical of Korea that I find disturbing. I’m not someone who will defend Korean racism or prejudice because of some misplaced sense of nationalism. I quite like Michael’s site because it reveals aspects of Korea, negative as well as positive, which I’d been completely unaware of. He is not uncritical and he also addresses issues relating to race, sexuality and nationalism, among others. But he places his criticisms in context and looks at the wider issues intelligently, and most importantly, he does not distort as you so obviously do on your site. There is a distinction between criticism and distortion. If you don’t see yourself as being racist, then don’t detract from what legitimate comments you may have to make by appearing to be one.

(I’ve only addressed the Korea related material on your site – the same sort of underlying intention to distort may coming through in your writings on other issues as well, which would be just as disturbing.)

As for evidence, you haven't even responded to what the metropolitician has pointed out, or what I've said in my previous post.

You respond to the criticism, early on in your blogging days, that you don't seem to say anything "positive" about Korea in "Korea Story," your only self-avowed "positive" post that has anything good to say about the country. Just in case your site happens to lose track of this page, I'll reprint it here below in its entirety, followed by "Porn Star," in which Matt describes his sexual escapades with Korean girls in Japan. I'm not a "moralizer" and I don't think there's any one of us out there who doesn't have skeletons in the closet, a wild story or three, or something you wouldn't want to relay to mom over the Sunday dinner table. But I find it extremely interesting that the only "positive" thing you had to say about Korea has to do with your sexual thrill seeking.

The only other post in the category of "Battle Report" – I find that a very interesting use of words – is "Tribute to Picking Up," in which Matt gives his poor Asian males advice as to how to pick up Asian women. Well, after having read Matt's first two posts on the subject, apparently he's the expert. But of course, Matt's white male privilege in Asia has nothing to do with it – he's actually that much of a Casanova. And any of these stories' similarity to Japan's creation of a system that made Korea a sexual romper room for Japanese soldiers – and the questionable naming of the category "Battle Report" – is completely coincidental.

I'll end this post by echoing the sentiments of "Not Today," the commentor who has offered several useful statements about the site.

I took another look at the blog and found a reference to "The Fighting 44's," a site I myself had a big run-in with, and is a site that I also consider racist in both content and tone. However, Matt's site becoming so indignant and pointing out the "racism" of that site while not even recognizing that he is simply the flip side of the coin – therein lies the irony.

For me personally, there is more irony in that the original reason for me to even publicly go at odds with Occidentalism is the fact that I felt the need to reject the "help" I was getting from several white male posters who had been offering me their sympathies as myself and my site was being unfairly and viciously attacked as "racist" for even daring to talk about Asian male penis size. I had suggested that instead of worrying about the fact or fantasy of penis size across the races – e.g. what if Asian men are actually smaller than Black men, so what?" – perhaps our critical energies should be better spent delinking penis size from masculinity, in the same way that "whites" have lighter skin than "blacks" and have constructed lighter skin color in terms of superiority, assuming that perhaps penis size variations might exist, as skin color variation exists, isn't it more constructive to say "Black skin is beautiful!" rather than quip about who is lighter and darker?

But I was called an "Uncle Tom" and "traitor" to my "race" and all kinds of other things not mentionable here. In the course of defending myself from claims I was racist for actually suggesting that we decolonize The Man's narrow and self-serving construction of raced masculinity (if in fact Asian men are smaller and Black men bigger, do either "benefit?" Both groups were "emascualated" and "hypersexualized", respectively, in relation to "The Man"). My point was that there's no need to debate the "fact" of size – you can't win that game.

Here is when Matt and other self-described white men came in to "help out," that is when I turned them away and launched my first (public) criticism of Occidentalism.org. I had been sitting on a long post – this one, in fact – about that blog but had wavered as to whether or not to suddenly, without warning, launch what would be perceived as an out-of-the blue "attack" on that site. Well, the white men writing in an talking about how good and "tight" Asian women's thangs were – that prompted a comment rejecting those comments (including Matt's), and then a comment war in which many of my concerns about how Asian men and women, Koreans in general, Black South Africans, Muslims in France and Britain, African-Americans, and just about every major minority group were targets of open attack on his site – mostly defined and derided as "racist" – even as Matt's apparent racist and misogynist stance was completely and utterly ignored.

As obvious as it was to many others, Matt can never seem to accept the apparent fact of his own racist and hateful views.

THE POINT

This is my point in writing about whiteness, white privilege, racism, and the Occidentalism.org site. While literally swimming in a sea of his own white privilege, misogyny, and racism – and ironically making a point of pointing out how misogynist, racist, and backward minority groups in other countries are (especially Koreans), Matt cannot see his own biases in all of this.

I sincerely believe he believes his site serves some useful purpose, that it is bravely debunking and exposing – for some higher good – the faults and foibles of Korean society, for example. A lot of people say they read my own site for partially that reason. But as my old sociology professor and mentor pointed out before his death the year after my graduation: it's important to think about how even two people can share a very similar intent, but the motivations underlying them will make it result in completely different effects, especially if one is rooted in "love" and one in "hate."

I am butchering his words, but I say this to make a point. What many of my readers feel is the difference between our two sites, both of which are very critical of Korean society. Still, as I have always maintained, my desire to criticize and even possibly make an academic career from this criticism come from my many positive affective ties, connections, and feeling that I want to see Korea become a better place. I know that my nit-picky, hand-wringing, cultural relativist colleagues will want to rake me over the coals for even saying such an "arrogant" thing, but I believe that my goals simply overlap with those of the Korean people themselves – that being one of making this a "better" country.

Matt's site, on the other hand, is one that I feel is simply motivated by negativity, one that channels an intense bitterness and malice towards this country – Korea – and other minority/colonized groups around the world. His site is one pregnant with and running over at the brim with a simplistic "hate" of people. It doesn't feel motivated out of a desire to "help" but rather to simply "hurt." And I realize that no matter what I will post in the future, no matter what flamewars are had, some people will simply think I am crazy for saying this. How dare I accuse a white man of being "racist?"

I just think it's pretty funny that in the mostly white and male expat blogging world, mostly white males are lightning-quick to point out racism of Koreans, for example. Matt or the Asiapages calling The Fighting 44's "racist" is accepted almost without question; but for a site such as Occidentalism.org – one I consider far more overtly "racist" in terms of a) what has been explicitly said, b) implicitly implied by the tone and consistent patterns found in the content, and c) uncritical acceptance of even the most racist comments – to call a white man "racist" in the mostly white, male blogosphere truly does mean "you done lost yo' mind."

More than Matt's site itself, the fact that no one really calls him on the hateful things his site represents and actually says, perhaps points to a much bigger problem that no one is willing to talk about. The Korean expat blogosphere is simply swimming in the waters of the white, male perspective, I dare proclaim. Now, please don't take the silly route and think I am simply saying "white, male bloggers are bad." That's not what I'm saying.

But perhaps the relatively little we hear that points this out and is critical of the mismatch between the deafening roar that typifies expats' use of the word "racist" to discipline Korean society and the peculiar silence that surrounds even the most vicious and vile examples of white racist discourse that sometimes pops up as sites like Occidentalism.org.

I'm not saying that I am the arbiter of race in the Korean blogosphere, nor am I necessarily right about everything, nor has my thinking on these matters stopped; in fact, it has been going on for a long time and I'd love to hear reasonable discourse about this subject ensue. But, for a long time, I just felt like someone had to say it.

And I have. Thanks for reading.

Appendices – Two Blog Posts from Occidentalism.org

"Korea Story"

Some of my friends say I should post some positive things about Korea. I had a great time in Korea. So here is the story of my trip to Korea. If you choose to view it, then do so at your own risk. I dont want to get any criticism from moralists or from Koreans saying that I am ’stealing their women’.

This was written in 2001, and shows me as I was in August of 2000

I went to Korea on business from Japan for 4 days. Whilst I was in town I thought it might be nice to score, but I was as busy as hell. Even though I was busy I did try to pick up a Japanese girl on the street outside Doota in Tongdemun (Doota is a massive fashion retail complex), but she was with a group of 3 and refused to go out.

So why didnt I initially go after K-Girls on the street, especially as I was in Korea? Because although my Japanese is quite fluent, my Korean is very poor. Before going to korea I did learn the hangul writing system, though. Only on my last night in Korea did I have any time. I whipped out my Lonely Planet guide (no kidding) to look for a place to pick up. It was Friday night and it reccomended a place called king’s club in Itaewon.

It said Kings clubs was filled with Korean girls who liked American G.I.’s and wore skimpy clothes. Now, usually im not interested in the girls who are only interested in foreigners, but with only a few hours to score I had to get somewhere where the communication barrier was not such a problem.

I dont know, but it seemed to be a foreigners only bar because they werent letting Korean men in whereas I just glided in. Of course, Korean WOMEN were very welcome. I just want to take a moment to talk about the accuracy of the Lonely Planet guides. Such as the time when I was in Thailand and went to a music club with a “mixed crowd”. Beware, “mixed crowd” is Lonely Planet code for entirely Gay. Also watch out for places the guide recomends as cultural or authentic, as this is a code for dirty or dangerous. Now why did I go completely off subject and start ranting about Lonely Planet? here’s why.

I looked around and found there were only a few girls, and only a few of them were wearing reavaling clothing. But boy, were there a LOT G.I.’s! That was the first time I had come into contact with the American Military (Im Australian), and I was surprised. They were a bunch of geeks, nerds and odd balls (sorry if you are American and offended by this, but I really felt like I had walked on to the set of REVENGE OF THE NERDS). However, I couldnt discount the potential for violence, so I decided that I would do my best to stay out of their way (because every knows how rowdy they can get, and im not one to fight a lost battle).

There were Black soldiers along with White soldiers, but I noticed something about one of the black soldiers immeadiately. A look of confidence/desperation. Can you imagine that look? He walked up to a Korean girl from where he was dancing on the dance floor and said “Baby, you is FINE. come on, lets dance”. She said no so he fell to the ground on his knees and started begging at which point she relented and consented to dance.

I bought a local beer at the bar and started looking for targets. And then I spotted them. 2 Japanese girls sitting in the corner! I approached them and started talking, and they were very friendly. One was pretty and one was average but still do-able.It seems they had come to Korea on a shopping holiday. both were in their Mid 20’s and were married. But that didnt stop me from turning up the sleaze. I suggested that they had come here for more than just shopping and actually wanted to mess around. They didnt deny it, but since I was only one guy they couldnt play with. That one of them would be “kawaisou” (poor). Dont worry, I said, I have an open mind. But it wasnt to be and they announced that they were going back to their hotel (an expensive and famous one unlike mine). I bid them a good trip and said farewell.

Refusing to discouraged, I started targeting again.

I found one.

She was the prettiest one in the room, but since there were no great beauties there it meant that she was a big fish in a small pond. I watched for about 5 minutes and when I decided that no G.I.’s were hanging around her, I approached. I didnt know whether she could speak english or not so I spoke in Korean.

“Shilrye hajiman, yegi chom hashireyo?” excuse me do you mind if we talk together? OK, she answered. Ah, OK, the universal word.

I wanted to make sure I wasnt wasting my time by talking to her because I had to catch the morning flight back to Japan. I wanted to ask her if she had a boyfriend. Instead I asked, “chigum yogi eso namja chingu inya?” Is your boyfriend here somewhere right now? Because I wanted to score regardless of whether she had a boyfriend or not, but didnt want to get caught in the act.

She answered, “opso”which means not here or non existent. She then told me in english that she could speak english and if that was more convenient I should feel free to speak in english. Feeling dumb, I said OK.

We talked for about 15 minutes. Her name was Sunmi. Now she was with 2 other Korean girls and they jointly announced that they were going. Sunmi kissed me on the cheek and said good bye.

With that failure, I went down the street to a bar called the russian something or other (cant remember), but there were no chicks so I went back to Kings after about half an hour. When I got back to King’s all the women were taken by G.I.’s and I didnt dare intrude. So I sat back at the bar and downed a couple of beers (local of course; im such an internationalist). The beers made me want to take a slash so I decided to go the the toilet then return to my hotel. when I got out of the toilet I saw Sunmi just kind of standing around.

“Didnt you go”, i asked
“Yes, but I came back”. Obviously.
I then felt what the heck and said,”so anyway, lets go to my hotel”.
she responded,”lets go to my place its closer”.
I said OK.

We got in the taxi and I asked how old she was. She said 27! she sure didnt look more than 24. She then started telling my how she was trying to break up with her American boyfriend who kept threatening to kill her if she did so. Uh oh, I thought. The last thing I need is a steroid crazed G.I. beating on the door outside her place while we were doing it. Tentatively I asked “Is your boyfriend a G.I.?”.
No, she answered, a computer programmer.

What a releif that was! I had nothing to fear from a computer programmer!

We arrived at her place and had a shower together before getting to it. It didnt know what I was getting in for. Even after I had spent all my essence, she used her mouth to make me hard again and again until I was but a hollow shell. By that time it was about 4 am, and she started saying that I should stay in Korea with her. I was kind but firm in explaining that I had to return on the 10 am flight back to Japan. She pulled out some cologne out of one of her drawers and said she was going to give it to her boyfriend but now she wanted to give it to me. Thanks, said I. At 5:30 am I caught a taxi back to were I was staying in Angukdong after saying our good byes. I then caught the train to Kimpo airport and boarded the plane.

And as I bid farewell to Korea, I vowed to return.

"Porn Star"

This is the follow up to ‘Korea Story’ that takes place after I got back to Japan from Korea. It relates my adventures in Tokyo with some Korean girls. Again, I dont want to get any criticism from moralists or from Koreans saying that I am ’stealing their women’.

When in Japan, I didn’t just want to live in Japan, I wanted to live in Japan. So I was quite willing to try all kinds of new things.

All my friends in Japan were all Japanese with one exception, a Korean girl. We first met in Australia where she had been a foreign student and we had met though friends. And we became real friends, rather odd for me since I don’t have any girl friends that I don’t “do” it with. So we became friends, she introducing me to her Korean girl friends (whom I hooked up with) and generally just hanging around having a good time.
Anyway the day came as it does for all foreign students to return to her home country. In the meantime, I started making preparations to go to Japan as the timing was right. Two weeks before departure I get a phone call. It was her, “Matt, ken told me you are going to Japan”. That’s right, I replied.
“Me too!”, she exclaimed.

JAPAN

I got off the train at Nippori JR in Tokyo. My eyes darted from side to side taking in the incredible forms of the Japanese women surrounding me as I exited the station. She and her friends were waiting for me. The cast is so: she is heyun, her friends are yujin and sora (names changed to protect the not so innocent). She had come to Japan about a week before me and now several months had passed. She lived in Nippori so I agreed to meet her there. Anyway I was eager to get out of Chiba and get into Tokyo from time to time. I had met her friends a couple of times before but this was the first time we would go out drinking together.

The four of us went into a chain izakaya (Japanese style bar/restaurant) where we ate and made merry. I started to become very merry indeed and I followed the precepts of drunken Japanese men and proceeded to sexually harass yujin (tall and beautiful) by touching her leg and putting my hand up her shirt. She told the other two what I was doing “sekuhara”, but the other two had already noticed. I admitted it but continued, and also started on sora(short and cute) at the same time. The girls could not speak Japanese very well (I was more or less fluent) so heyun had to translate my English into Korean when they couldn’t understand what I said, which was quite often.
Well a couple of hours later we were well and truly drunk. Sora tried to get up to go to the toilet but found she lacked the co-ordination so heyun asked assist her in getting to the toilet as I was going anyway. I held her arm as we walked toward the toilet, during which she had ceased speaking Japanese and started speaking in Korean, my knowledge of which was rudimentary at best. As we got to the door of the female toilet she made as if she couldn’t make it on her own. I asked her if she wanted help getting in the door. She gave the affirmative nod. I led her in the female toilet (thank goodness no one was in there) and led her into a cubicle. “My pants”, she said.
I said “you want me to take them off for you..?”

“yes”, said sora.

I took them off gingerly, trying to be a gentleman. Once the were off she turned around and exclaimed, “putakhamnida!”(same as onegaishimasu in japanese meaning please!), taking off her panties and presenting her rear end to me . As a true gentleman does not deny the requests of a lady, I assented.
Two minutes later someone had come into the ladies toilet.
“Is everything alright in there?” asked a strangers female voice.
“um, everything is fine… my friend is throwing up” I answered.
I quickly zipped up and put her pants back on her and led her back to the table.
A little while later we were ready to leave. Apparently they all decided that it was my turn to pay the bill and someone else would pay “next time”. So I laid down 14000 and left together.

We went to heyun’s apartment where she shared but had her own bedroom. As the four of us were lying down trying to sleep I surreptitiously moved closer to sora, eager to continue the cultural exchange that we had started before.
As I reached her the light suddenly went on and the girls demanded to know what I was doing. I said I wasn’t intending to do anything but they had me. They accused me of trying to have sex with sora, who seemed pretty much out of it.
“Go ahead and do it”, they proclaimed.
“Really? Ok turn off the light and ill get to it”, I said
“No”, they said, “you have to do it while we watch if you are going to it at all.”
Images of decadent and fallen Rome flashed through my mind. The possibility that yujin might get excited and join in also weighed heavily on my following decision (although for some reason I was not so keen to do anything with my friend heyun. I guess it’s a true platonic friendship).

I decided to do it.

I pulled off sora’s panties and her top and stripped down myself. Sora seemed half there and half not. No matter, I mounted her to the cheers of our friends. Sora made noises of pleasure as heyun and yujin called out their support.
“Go Matt!!! You are like a PORN STAR!”, they cheered.
After finishing we talked (but sora slept) and I decided to go another round. Unfortunately, yujin did not become excited to the extent that she wanted to join in and make my two women, one man dream come true.
Then I slept a sleep full of pleasant dreams.
Upon awakening we all ate breakfast and heyun and yujin asked sora about the night before.
“I was so drunk I can’t remember anything”, she said drowsily.

Ready to leave, sora escorted me to the ground floor of the building. I asked if she really couldn’t remember anything.
“of course I remember”, she said, kissing me on the cheek.
And I left, feeling life was one great moment after another.