Kingston VS. Chin

"In one tale, Chin parodies "Woman Warrior" by writing of a woman author who changes the Joan of Arc myth by turning her into a man who is castrated and burned at the stake" (LA Times article).

The debate between Chin and Kingston seems like it's more destructive to Asian American literature than it is beneficial. I cannot truly understand in any way how it is constructive. I think it is helpful to criticize peer literature for the purpose of bringing new issues to light or progressing as authors, and if part of a debate it is important to do so with integrity. However, from this article, it seems that a sense of integrity is lost, and literature is created for the sole purpose of hurting another author.

Reference to feet binding in China: In what other ways are women "bounded" by society today?

This question was initially a difficult one to answer. It was surfacing on something more specific, perhaps linking foot binding to a similar instance of modern day oppression of women. However, the more I read the question, the broader the question seemed, and thus I retreated to answer the question as if I were answering the same question about female oppression that has been resurfacing recently. My frustration does not lie in the question itself, but in the feeling that there is another level of understanding we have lingered above penetrating.

Frustration aside, I responded to two facets of the prompt. My first reaction was to examine the stereotypes that women today face, and the means available by which this idea of beauty is attainable. Stereotypical beauty can be broken down on three levels: behavior, dress, and physicality. Behavior refers to the mannerisms and intentional portrayal of oneself for the purpose of being attractive and desired. Dress refers to what is socially accepted as attractive attire i.e. tight shirts, tight jeans. Physicality refers to what is a stereotypically attractive body: being thin, tall, curvaceous, sultry, etc. In the societal standards of what is considered attractive in America, women are compared to these standards, and thus in a sense are "bound" by them.

The other approach I took to this prompt was that of gender roles and discrimination today. Gender discrimination is evident in the workplace, where women of similar education attainment of men still earn less in comparison, and are less likely to receive authoritative positions over men. Also, stereotyping remains from the typical roles that women have served in the past. The housewife or subservient nature of women from the past effects women today in that expectations of them are not as high as they are for men. In this way, women are "bound" by the stereotypes that define their gender roles.

There is no denying that women are somewhat "bound" today as a result of their gender. The question remains: what has made the circumstances better today than they were during the days of foot binding?

One Step Ahead

I could never understand why. Asking wasn't an option: he was oblivious himself to the fact. Maybe it's in the genes, or maybe he has special powers.

It's harder when you're the older sibling, not to mention the oldest. I wanted to be the one establishing standards and leaving precedents imbedded in our family history. But my little brother, well, he always paced one step ahead.

Do I sound envious? Because that really isn't my intention. For years my overwhelming pride in his academic stellar-ness was surpressed by the immature competition of childhood. If I spent hours studying for an exam while he spent one and the rest reclining to music, well one thing was always in my favor - I could still beat him up. But, as I said, that really wasn't my intention.

Years of years and years past, the suppression subsided, and my biggest fear seeped in: I didn't ignore his gift of intellectualism to reprimand him, I had been too afraid to acknowledge it myself. But once I did, I couldn't help it. I think that's one thing younger siblings will never realize: older brothers, sisters, love them more than they imagine, or ever care to show.

We Are All Suspects Now - My Memoir

In the stories told, what comes up a lot is the issue of documentation and being able to prove the identity you assume. This has inevitably led me to think about what my grandmother could have gone through had she been under different circumstances.

My grandma lived in the GuangZhou region of China up until the era of Mao. When he took over and implemented his policies, my grandmother and her family lost literally everything except for each other. She moved next to Burma, but without any sort of legal documentation or paper work to prove who she was. Any sort of documentation had been lost or left behind in China. I remember the first time I realized how serious an issue this could pose. When in middle school, out of curiousity I casually asked my mom one day, "how old is grandma?" And my mom replied, "Umm...I think she's somewhere between 63 and 67 years old". At first I thought nothing of it. I said next, "Well, what year was she born in?" And my mom, rather accepting of the fact, said "She isn't sure. She doesn't remember exactly and her papers were lost a long time ago."

Thinking back on these circumstances, had the Chinese been profiled as terrorists, like people from the Middle East, South Asia, etc. are today, my grandmother probably would have been deported as well, especially if strict immigration laws were put into effect. If something like the "round up" that affected Pakistanis was implemented, where illegal immigrants were forced to turn themselves in, for the Chinese, my life along with my extended family's would have been very different.

I believe this really sums up the title of Nguyen's book. Manipulate and twist, substitute and swtich, and any one of us could be considered terrorists. It's all a matter of perception and portrayal, fueled by nothing deadlier than fear. All it would take for my grandma to face the consequences of not having proper documentation like thousands in America are today, is for the media to profile the Chinese as dangerous and threatening to the country. This in of itself is something that all Americans should be concerned with.

Response to Carol

As a member of PAC [Pan Asian Council], we actively engage in discussing community issues, especially ones such as the carol published in "The Primary Source". We spent almost the entirety of a one-hour meeting debating whether freedom of speech has been violated. Freedom of speech means just that: you're allowed to say whatever you want without fear of punishment. When does this line get crossed? Is the environment different on college campuses?

The conclusion we reached was: yes. I'm not sure exactly what the laws and rules are [someone mentioned them briefly], but they are something to the effect that any racially discriminating remarks are subject to penalty. This reminds me very much of the first day of class, when we were discussing whether Adidas should be penalized for marketing the "Yellow Series". Should we be allowed, in this capitalistic society, to deny them the right to sell that line? It's a frustrating debate, one that seemingly never reaches a comforting conclusion.

With respect to the carol, I do believe that it should not have been published, for the sole reason that it is offensive, rude, and non-conducive to creating a comfortable university environment. I also believe, however, that they had the right to publish it. So, in the end, I guess I have to agree with what Mitch Robinson said in the campus media: "Freedom of speech should be used with respect" http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/12/tufts. Our university is based on the principle of respect, for each other, for a comfortoable environment, for the ability to learn and give back. I guess we all trusted that no one would have posted such a poem in the first place.

We Are All Suspects Now - Through Chapter 2

Nguyen's We Are All Suspects Now provides within just the first two chapters a variety of anecdotes, in-depth and not, about immigrants in America who have most definitely faced increased discrimination due to the events of September 11th. Reading about the consequences of this discrimination is both frustrating and disturbing. Learning about how government institutions and policy, implicitly or explicity, helped feed this discrimination, is down right disheartening. For example, many references are made to Attorney General Ashcroft's approval of granting officials unfair authority to invade basic privacy rights.

Although I do believe each anecdote is important to the book in it's own way, providing a variety of perspectives allowing us to broaden our scope of the issue at hand, at times the proximity, length, and order of the stories can be overwhelming and a bit confusing. On the other hand, this could be seen to prove yet another point about post 9/11 America: this issue is real, current, and flooding our country - the time to deal with it has long been due.

I think the extent to which American ideals has been reversed it alluded to in the Introduction of the book, where it says, "people without status and with a certain profile must earn and deserve their place in society, must prove why they should not be suspected, jailed, and shipped away" (XV). How can we grant some the privelage of "innocent until proven guilty", while others the exact opposite, and still justify that America is a country based on equality? This quote particularly struck me because it made me stop and question whether America really has become so undoubtedly segregated.

My question for Ms. Nguyen is this: Are most immigrants in America aware of how recent policies that have been put into effect essentially discriminate against them? Why or why not? If they are, are they willing to mobilize against them?