This is a blog for the ASIAN340 (Asian Pacific American Media), Fall 2009. Students are expected to:
1) Post a 250-word response to each class's set of readings, before the readings are due.
2) Post a 250-word response to one of their classmate's reading responses, after the readings are due.
3) Attach a relevant internet-based cultural production (video clip, photograph, song, etc) to their reading response, and briefly explain how the cultural production relates to the readings.
It is interesting to see how the ideas from the previous readings culminate in this article, which explores the development of the yellow peril. What particularly sticks out is the ways in which yellow peril, developed by "dominant, mainstream media makers," came to define how Asian Americans were perceived in America. This parallels Karl Marx and Gramsci's thesis about the ideas of the ruling, dominant class becoming the ideas of the majority.
In some sense, the development of yellow peril also mirrors today's scare of people from the Middle East. One of the most devastating effects of the War on Terror was the increased biased against people from the Middle East. Even Indians, who wore turbins, came to be associated with terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11, even though India is a stalwart ally of the United States.
As such, the distance between appearance and reality can be measured through application of the many ideas we read about in previous readings. If the dominant, ruling class (media producers, politicans, etc) classifies a certain race as dangerous, the whole society may as well percieve that particular race as also dangerous.
I would like to learn more about the background of the various immigration acts passed in the U.S. that barred Chinese immigrants. How did these acts come about? Were they reasonable legislations? Or were they unreasonable legislations whose bedrock was built upon unconfounded fears of yellow peril?
Didn't we move this discussion to Blackboard. It's time to move on and let go of this place.
Anyways, point taken about the war on terror but I think that considering the fact that we rounded up several Japanese people during WWII and placed them into camps and they didn't - unlike the terrorist being fought now - have an intricate network of cells waiting to attack. I believe that the backlash against Muslims in this country was considerably tame and more reflective of the fact that you can always find people everywhere who are willing to harass or harm another. I also recall broadcasts going at great lengths to say 'no, not all muslims are terrorists.' so in this way I don't think its nearly the same.
I was a bit confused about the direction of the movie when I first started watching it. I thought this movie, for a change, would be about the representation of the Chinese in a less biased way. As the film went on I realized that this was simply another movie in which an Asian person is projected as the different person. It was very striking to see how the editing of this movie contrasted the social life of the father in bars and with women, while alternating the takes with those of the Yellow man as an alienated person who stood on the streets alone, or in his room simply smoking opium. Despite the fact that the father was a far less desirable person to be around and that the people around him seemed to know, the Yellow man was perceived to be much worse. Even the character of "evil eye" was represented by an Asian-looking person. I wish I could have simply watched the last six clips of this movie, since it was explained mostly in the book.
I think there is an enormous sense of hatred against any culture that is non-white. Throughout the years, it seems to me that americans seem to simply change the target from one to another. There was an article in the NY Times this past saturday about how China controls 99% of some precious metal or something like that, that will be used in the new generation of automobiles. I wish I would have paid more attention to it. Did anyone read it?
Comments on Ono and Pham's article, 25-34.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how the ideas from the previous readings culminate in this article, which explores the development of the yellow peril. What particularly sticks out is the ways in which yellow peril, developed by "dominant, mainstream media makers," came to define how Asian Americans were perceived in America. This parallels Karl Marx and Gramsci's thesis about the ideas of the ruling, dominant class becoming the ideas of the majority.
In some sense, the development of yellow peril also mirrors today's scare of people from the Middle East. One of the most devastating effects of the War on Terror was the increased biased against people from the Middle East. Even Indians, who wore turbins, came to be associated with terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11, even though India is a stalwart ally of the United States.
As such, the distance between appearance and reality can be measured through application of the many ideas we read about in previous readings. If the dominant, ruling class (media producers, politicans, etc) classifies a certain race as dangerous, the whole society may as well percieve that particular race as also dangerous.
I would like to learn more about the background of the various immigration acts passed in the U.S. that barred Chinese immigrants. How did these acts come about? Were they reasonable legislations? Or were they unreasonable legislations whose bedrock was built upon unconfounded fears of yellow peril?
@LowFatYogurt
ReplyDeleteDidn't we move this discussion to Blackboard. It's time to move on and let go of this place.
Anyways, point taken about the war on terror but I think that considering the fact that we rounded up several Japanese people during WWII and placed them into camps and they didn't - unlike the terrorist being fought now - have an intricate network of cells waiting to attack. I believe that the backlash against Muslims in this country was considerably tame and more reflective of the fact that you can always find people everywhere who are willing to harass or harm another. I also recall broadcasts going at great lengths to say 'no, not all muslims are terrorists.' so in this way I don't think its nearly the same.
I was a bit confused about the direction of the movie when I first started watching it. I thought this movie, for a change, would be about the representation of the Chinese in a less biased way. As the film went on I realized that this was simply another movie in which an Asian person is projected as the different person. It was very striking to see how the editing of this movie contrasted the social life of the father in bars and with women, while alternating the takes with those of the Yellow man as an alienated person who stood on the streets alone, or in his room simply smoking opium. Despite the fact that the father was a far less desirable person to be around and that the people around him seemed to know, the Yellow man was perceived to be much worse. Even the character of "evil eye" was represented by an Asian-looking person. I wish I could have simply watched the last six clips of this movie, since it was explained mostly in the book.
ReplyDelete@ Anthony Paul A
ReplyDeleteI think there is an enormous sense of hatred against any culture that is non-white. Throughout the years, it seems to me that americans seem to simply change the target from one to another.
There was an article in the NY Times this past saturday about how China controls 99% of some precious metal or something like that, that will be used in the new generation of automobiles. I wish I would have paid more attention to it. Did anyone read it?