The article written by Robert G. Lee redefined or made clear what the function of race should be. He states that race should not be “a category of nature”, or just an indicator of biological differences, but a sociological ideology that is man-made or “socially defined”. As Professor Yang mentioned in class, Lee also touches upon what the racial term Oriental was intended to suggest by the wealthier racial class of the United States, to mark the Yellowfaces as aliens. Furthermore, with historical example such as the case of Ozawa and Thind, I believe it is very challenging for society, even today, to ignore biological differences and naturalize differences with existing history that has built society the way it is.
According to Lee, “Yellowface marks the Oriental as indelibly alien.” By exaggerating physical features that have been considered “Oriental,” the dominant group marginalized the Asian Americans from the mainstream American society. In doing so, the dominant group established “American” identity while creating stereotypes and representations of Asian Americans. I believe these stereotypes and representations soon became what it means to be Asian American or Asian American identity, which prevented Asian Americans to become “real Americans.” As a resistance, Asian Americans created a subculture where they redefine and reproduce Asian American identity that is apart from what already existed. I believe Asian American media functions as a part of the subculture and tries to answer the discontinuity of Asian American identity. However, there will be no right or fixed answers to what it means to be Asian American because it keeps reforming and transforming as Feng stated, “history’s motion implies identities in motion.”
I think that Robert G. Lee made some interesting points in his chapter from Yellowface. Particularly, the fact that in America, we tend to confuse racial identities with national ones. Even I am still asked, what is your nationality? rather than my ethnicity/race, though it is clearly obvious that they are asking about my ethnicity. As Lee said, this ideology was very prominent during the midn 20th century. The really interesting thing about that is that Americans were/are still confusing these national identities with racial ones, even during/after World War II. When I think about racial ideologies that coincide with national identities, I think about Hitler's attempt to create a nation under the premise of race. As most of us know, that race was the "Aryan" race. I think its interesting that America would perpetuate such ideologies, even during/after the attempts of enemy Nazi-Germany.
Lee's chapter brings an interesting thought to mind: what does it mean to be American? If there some validity to the idea of a racialized/nationalized country? I already know that these kinds of questions are disregarded by many, including myself sometimes, because there are too many political/controversial agendas attached to them; but, I think it makes good food for thought, at the very least. I think its important to contemplate what makes us American, and how can this idea of a common national mythology be taught/prescribed unto ethnic peoples who were not part of it(pre-19th Cent.)
In response to Feng's chapter, I thought that he also made some great points. He said something along the lines of "Identities aren't created by film, rather they are put into motion." I think that summed up some of our thoughts from our first class pretty well, that, Asian American film is good at showing how the Asian American condition is "thought to be," rather than how it is. Also, I think he made a very important point in saying that Asian American film/Asian Americans in film can have a pan-asian/homogenizing consequence. Like he said, being Korean-American, or Vietnamese-American can be very different than Asian-American. These different "parent" nationalities carry with them different cultures/ethics/memory. At the same time, we have to wonder: does stating oneself as Korean-American make this idea of racial national identity more valid? Why should these parent nationalities be listed under an identity, even if someone is born in the United States or naturalized?
After reading through the Lee essay, it provided some insight in different viewpoints regarding race for me. I had not thought too much about the six different kinds of views that America had put upon Asian Immigrants, and the definition of Alien vs. Foreign. There was also a little bit of confusion at first about the cover of the magazine that is printed on the top of the page. I thought that the National Review had actually posed them for this picture, and that the Clintons in addition to Gore had posed for it as a means to address the connotations that are brought up with them, but this did not make sense. After further reading, the whole situation that the magazine cover arose from did not make much sense. As a Media-Major I think that the discussion of race obscured the issue of the companies that they were making deals with, which also was brought up a little bit in the article.
As far as the six different views of the Asian Immigrant in the United States, I was not consciously aware of these stereotypes, but they show up over and over again in Media. The article was a good read if not to only bring this to my attention. The model minority idea was interesting, because that implies that everyone should strive toward the majority, which is something that I disagree with.
Another thing that was brought to my attention, although it was a small and shorter point of the article, was the difference between Alien and Foreign. Something that I have learned throughout my four years at the University, which is something that I focus more on now, is the value of word changes. The connotations that each of these words have are different, and they have slightly different meanings as a result of this. Overall this was a good introductory reading, and it also brings up some interesting points, and has provided insight for me in looking at issues in this class.
4 comments:
The article written by Robert G. Lee redefined or made clear what the function of race should be. He states that race should not be “a category of nature”, or just an indicator of biological differences, but a sociological ideology that is man-made or “socially defined”. As Professor Yang mentioned in class, Lee also touches upon what the racial term Oriental was intended to suggest by the wealthier racial class of the United States, to mark the Yellowfaces as aliens. Furthermore, with historical example such as the case of Ozawa and Thind, I believe it is very challenging for society, even today, to ignore biological differences and naturalize differences with existing history that has built society the way it is.
According to Lee, “Yellowface marks the Oriental as indelibly alien.” By exaggerating physical features that have been considered “Oriental,” the dominant group marginalized the Asian Americans from the mainstream American society. In doing so, the dominant group established “American” identity while creating stereotypes and representations of Asian Americans. I believe these stereotypes and representations soon became what it means to be Asian American or Asian American identity, which prevented Asian Americans to become “real Americans.” As a resistance, Asian Americans created a subculture where they redefine and reproduce Asian American identity that is apart from what already existed. I believe Asian American media functions as a part of the subculture and tries to answer the discontinuity of Asian American identity. However, there will be no right or fixed answers to what it means to be Asian American because it keeps reforming and transforming as Feng stated, “history’s motion implies identities in motion.”
I think that Robert G. Lee made some interesting points in his chapter from Yellowface. Particularly, the fact that in America, we tend to confuse racial identities with national ones. Even I am still asked, what is your nationality? rather than my ethnicity/race, though it is clearly obvious that they are asking about my ethnicity. As Lee said, this ideology was very prominent during the midn 20th century. The really interesting thing about that is that Americans were/are still confusing these national identities with racial ones, even during/after World War II. When I think about racial ideologies that coincide with national identities, I think about Hitler's attempt to create a nation under the premise of race. As most of us know, that race was the "Aryan" race. I think its interesting that America would perpetuate such ideologies, even during/after the attempts of enemy Nazi-Germany.
Lee's chapter brings an interesting thought to mind: what does it mean to be American? If there some validity to the idea of a racialized/nationalized country? I already know that these kinds of questions are disregarded by many, including myself sometimes, because there are too many political/controversial agendas attached to them; but, I think it makes good food for thought, at the very least. I think its important to contemplate what makes us American, and how can this idea of a common national mythology be taught/prescribed unto ethnic peoples who were not part of it(pre-19th Cent.)
In response to Feng's chapter, I thought that he also made some great points. He said something along the lines of "Identities aren't created by film, rather they are put into motion." I think that summed up some of our thoughts from our first class pretty well, that, Asian American film is good at showing how the Asian American condition is "thought to be," rather than how it is. Also, I think he made a very important point in saying that Asian American film/Asian Americans in film can have a pan-asian/homogenizing consequence. Like he said, being Korean-American, or Vietnamese-American can be very different than Asian-American. These different "parent" nationalities carry with them different cultures/ethics/memory. At the same time, we have to wonder: does stating oneself as Korean-American make this idea of racial national identity more valid? Why should these parent nationalities be listed under an identity, even if someone is born in the United States or naturalized?
Sorry for the extremely long post!
After reading through the Lee essay, it provided some insight in different viewpoints regarding race for me. I had not thought too much about the six different kinds of views that America had put upon Asian Immigrants, and the definition of Alien vs. Foreign. There was also a little bit of confusion at first about the cover of the magazine that is printed on the top of the page. I thought that the National Review had actually posed them for this picture, and that the Clintons in addition to Gore had posed for it as a means to address the connotations that are brought up with them, but this did not make sense. After further reading, the whole situation that the magazine cover arose from did not make much sense. As a Media-Major I think that the discussion of race obscured the issue of the companies that they were making deals with, which also was brought up a little bit in the article.
As far as the six different views of the Asian Immigrant in the United States, I was not consciously aware of these stereotypes, but they show up over and over again in Media. The article was a good read if not to only bring this to my attention. The model minority idea was interesting, because that implies that everyone should strive toward the majority, which is something that I disagree with.
Another thing that was brought to my attention, although it was a small and shorter point of the article, was the difference between Alien and Foreign. Something that I have learned throughout my four years at the University, which is something that I focus more on now, is the value of word changes. The connotations that each of these words have are different, and they have slightly different meanings as a result of this. Overall this was a good introductory reading, and it also brings up some interesting points, and has provided insight for me in looking at issues in this class.
Post a Comment