In a world where Kevin Garnett, Harold Ford, and Halle Berry all check “black” on the census, even the argument that racial labels refer to natural differences in physical traits doesn’t hold up.
Food for thought
Quentin Lee has been called a “Gaysian” filmmaker, representing two significant minorities in the industry. He both exemplifies…
Kollaboration Atlanta Showcase Antony Bui.
Great piece on smashing Asian stereotypes.
Jasmine Chan recently posted a PolicyMic article entitled How to Combat Asian Hipsterism. I thought it was an interesting piece, one worth sharing and discussing. In it, she argues that “some stereotypes remain entrenched simply because we, as Asian-Americans, simply aren’t playing a strong enough role in shaping societal perceptions for ourselves. Ultimately, not enough is being done by Asians and Asian-Americans to proactively drive and shape more well-rounded, more comprehensive and more — dare I say it — authentic perceptions of themselves in the media and within society more broadly.”
She concludes by quoting Tim Wu, saying ““if Asian-Americans want to get serious about the movie business, it may be time to create studios with a real interest in supporting such work — to build, in other words, an empire of their own.”
I think more than anything else, this demonstrates the power of white privilege in our society. Whites don’t have to worry about how their individual behaviors will be cast upon perceptions of the entire group. Asians and other minority groups do. Rather than bowing under the weight of fear that we might be perpetuating stereotypes, we should be working to combat positions of privilege and help educate others.
I feel really weird doing this. But as you know, most of my life (school, work, blogging, etc) is online. My laptop was recently stolen and the police essentially told me to not expect anything in terms of getting it back. I don’t really know what to say except that I wouldn’t ask unless I absolutely had to. Please, if you could donate anything towards my new computer fund, I would appreciate it to the ends of the earth. I’m working part-time and attending school full-time so I’m going to save up but any ANY help would greatly be appreciated.
Thank you and much love.
Juliet (Fascinasians)
Please help Juliet, Facinasians is a great blog on race and API culture.
![A few years ago, I filed a trademark application for my band, The Slants. The US Trademark Office rejected it, claiming it was disparaging towards Asians. I was baffled: I’m Asian. At first, we fought it by collecting testimonies and letters of support from Asian American organizations; having several independent surveys done (they showed the majority of Asian Americans supported us), getting linguistics studies, and so on. Over the years, we have sent over 2,500 pages of evidence.
However, the Trademark Office defended their decision. They used internet sources such as urbandictionary.com, Asian joke websites, and several dictionaries from the early 1940’s.
So, we started digging deeper. Rather than focusing on their accusation of offensive behavior, we started questioning why they accused us to begin with. After all, “slant” can mean any number of things and the racial connotation is obscure anyway. Why did they have problems with my application but not with the dozens of others who were approved? We got the answer back and it was disturbing. The issue had nothing to do with how we used the name, the decision was made based on my race.
Obviously, I believe that re-appropriation can be a powerful tool for creating social change. Sometimes, things like irony, satire, or humor are more effective in getting at difficult truths or concepts like white privilege, orientalism, and the exoticization of culture.
However, let’s push all the arguments about re-appropriation or intentions aside and focus on the real issue: people should not be denied rights because of their race.
As anti-racist essayist Tim Wise notes, institutionalized racism is the “policies, practices and procedures-both formal and informal-in which some persons typically have more or less opportunity than others…because of their respective racial identities. [It] involves denying persons opportunities…on the basis of race, to which those individuals are otherwise entitled.”
The Trademark Office admitted that the term “slant” is not an inherently offensive one; the reason why they chose to associate me with a racial slur was because “it is uncontested that applicant is a founding member of a band…composed of members of Asian descent…thus, the association.”
Their reasoning had nothing to do with our intentions or whether Asian Americans are actually disparaged, only my ethnicity. This is why “The Slants” is something that anyone can trademark, anyone except Asian Americans. This is also why you see whites trademarking terms like “chink,” “jap,” and “oriental” without even being questioned. Asians need not apply, whites only.
The deadline they gave us for our appeal was Feb 19th, anniversary of Executive Order 9066, the initiative which led to the detainment of Japanese Americans. Has the government not learned anything in 71 years?
Our case is a public record, feel free to read about it on JD Supra Law News.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/09de1610771af1542772837954784260/tumblr_mlo5axPKnq1qllqvdo1_500.jpg)
A few years ago, I filed a trademark application for my band, The Slants. The US Trademark Office rejected it, claiming it was disparaging towards Asians. I was baffled: I’m Asian. At first, we fought it by collecting testimonies and letters of support from Asian American organizations; having several independent surveys done (they showed the majority of Asian Americans supported us), getting linguistics studies, and so on. Over the years, we have sent over 2,500 pages of evidence.
However, the Trademark Office defended their decision. They used internet sources such as urbandictionary.com, Asian joke websites, and several dictionaries from the early 1940’s.
So, we started digging deeper. Rather than focusing on their accusation of offensive behavior, we started questioning why they accused us to begin with. After all, “slant” can mean any number of things and the racial connotation is obscure anyway. Why did they have problems with my application but not with the dozens of others who were approved? We got the answer back and it was disturbing. The issue had nothing to do with how we used the name, the decision was made based on my race.
Obviously, I believe that re-appropriation can be a powerful tool for creating social change. Sometimes, things like irony, satire, or humor are more effective in getting at difficult truths or concepts like white privilege, orientalism, and the exoticization of culture.
However, let’s push all the arguments about re-appropriation or intentions aside and focus on the real issue: people should not be denied rights because of their race.
As anti-racist essayist Tim Wise notes, institutionalized racism is the “policies, practices and procedures-both formal and informal-in which some persons typically have more or less opportunity than others…because of their respective racial identities. [It] involves denying persons opportunities…on the basis of race, to which those individuals are otherwise entitled.”
The Trademark Office admitted that the term “slant” is not an inherently offensive one; the reason why they chose to associate me with a racial slur was because “it is uncontested that applicant is a founding member of a band…composed of members of Asian descent…thus, the association.”
Their reasoning had nothing to do with our intentions or whether Asian Americans are actually disparaged, only my ethnicity. This is why “The Slants” is something that anyone can trademark, anyone except Asian Americans. This is also why you see whites trademarking terms like “chink,” “jap,” and “oriental” without even being questioned. Asians need not apply, whites only.
The deadline they gave us for our appeal was Feb 19th, anniversary of Executive Order 9066, the initiative which led to the detainment of Japanese Americans. Has the government not learned anything in 71 years?
Our case is a public record, feel free to read about it on JD Supra Law News.
Rachel Rostad’s response to critiques of her poem “To JK Rowling, From Cho Chang.” I think it even works well as a stand alone video and is worth checking out. (original video/poem) it needs more views :)
Mad respect to Rachel for being open to learning from criticism and continuing to direct the conversation towards something constructive. I know a lot of poets who take criticism as personal attacks and refuse to dialogue or admit their piece may have had a negative impact. Rachel is a dope example of a responsible artist going above and beyond with conversations around her work.
Super super awesome. We need more artists like her.
The best bar mitzvah invitation ever
