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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the protesters saw something far more menacing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the heels of my recent post about the Australian government’s official apology to its aborigine population, the Associated Press reports that Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) has proposed legislation that would officially apologize to the American Indian population for centuries of mistreatment from the federal government:

“For too much of our history, federal-tribal relations have been marked by broken treaties, mistreatment and dishonorable dealings,” said Brownback, a Republican. “We can acknowledge our past failures, express sincere regrets and establish a brighter future for all Americans.”

The resolution says the federal government forced Indians off tribal lands, stole tribal assets and is responsible for “official depredations, ill-conceived policies and the breaking of covenants” with tribes. The Senate added the resolution as an amendment to the health care bill by voice vote Thursday night. . . .

It is unusual for Congress to apologize for official government acts, though there have been exceptions, including a 1988 apology for interning Japanese-Americans in detention camps during World War II and a 1993 apology to native Hawaiians for the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. . . .

The Indian apology resolution in the Senate bill is careful to state that it is not meant to authorize or support any claim against the U.S. government or serve as a settlement of any claim.

Even though the proposed apology does not include any reparations, to be honest, I am rather shocked that a conservative Republican is leading this effort and that Congress is well on its way to approving such a measure. As I and other scholars have written about before, the U.S. government is usually not too keen on admitting that it has systematically mistreated its minority groups throughout history.

Maybe things have changed, who knows. At any rate, this would be a monumental symbolic achievement and I give huge props to Senator Brownback for having the conviction to lead this effort.

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

The First Annual Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival

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

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

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

Please send your films to:

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

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

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

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

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

Similar to the experiences of Native American Indians and Blacks in the U.S., the history of how aborigines in Australia have been treated is well-documented. This history includes blatant and systematic discrimination, physical brutality, and the forced separation of mixed-race aborigine children from their parents to be raised “White,” referred to as the “stolen generation.”

Within this context and as CBS News reports, in a move that has strong symbolic -- if not practical -- meaning, the Australian government will now issue a formal apology to aborigines for the historical practice of forced child-parent separation (portrayed in the critically-acclaimed 2002 movie Rabbit Proof Fence):

Australia will issue its first formal apology to the country’s indigenous people next month . . . a milestone that could ease tensions with a minority once subjected to policies including the removal of mixed-blood children from families on the premise that their race was doomed. . . .

[Government leaders] have previously ruled out financial compensation for the impoverished minority. . . . Australia’s original inhabitants, Aborigines number about 450,000 among a population of 21 million. Aborigines are the poorest ethnic group in Australia and are most likely to be jailed, unemployed and illiterate. . . .

From 1910 until the 1970s, around 100,000 mostly mixed-blood Aboriginal children were taken from their parents under state and federal laws based on a premise that Aborigines were a doomed race and saving the children was a humane alternative.

A national inquiry in 1997 found that many children taken from their families suffered long-term psychological effects stemming from the loss of family and culture.

I commend the new Australian government for taking this action, although I am disappointed that financial reparations are not included. Nonetheless it is a positive symbolic step forward into acknowledging the injustices of the past.

Perhaps our own government can learn something about this in regard to our own history of how our government has treated its indigenous and enslaved populations through the centuries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————————-

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

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

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