The latest installation in the line of merchandise and marketing that capitalizes on Asian stereotypes is Comedy Central’s staggeringly humorless and offensive show, Banzai. The show’s official tagline, posted on the Comedy Central web site and which presumably intends to mimic the broken English that all Japanese apparently speak, reads: “Get ready for new gaming opportunity!”

The show panders to the bottom-feeders of the Comedy Central audience — in the brief minutes that I watched the show in transfixed horror, I saw a man who was excitedly screaming in broken English as two dwarves attempted to climb a “mountain,” which was, in fact, a rather tall man.  Characters, which I can only presume where meant to look like the Japanese script of Kanji, occasionally cascaded across the TV screen.

Comedy Central joins Urban Outfitters and Abercombie & Fitch in peddling Asian-themed merchandise.  Abercrombie was pilloried for its offensive line of clothing; among the Abercrombie t-shirts that excited national outrage was a shirt that featured a hunched over and apparently Chinese cartoon figure under the slogans “Wok-N-Bowl,” “Let the Good Times Roll” and “Chinese Food and Bowling.”

Asian-American Village has addressed the creative retaliation that Abercrombie & Fitch’s marketing ploy has produced, such as t-shirts that read “Artfulbigotry & Kitsch.”  While it doesn’t appear that Banzai has excited the same outrage that the Abercrombie scandal achieved, it is certainly evidence of a commercial trend.  

Aside from its curious and total lack of humor, and disregarding the offensiveness of the show, Banzai evidences a complete lack of cultural context. “Banzai,” the title of the show, is a cheer that is often used at times of celebration. However, it is also a cheer that resonates deeply with Japanese nationalist sentiments, and which Japanese nationalists, who often campaign in the streets of Tokyo, yell out with pride. At a time when Japan is entering into a situation of armed conflict for the first time since the end of WWII, and when the remilitarization is a serious — and, for many, a very troubling — issue in Japanese politics, Comedy Central displays its blindness to the cultural context in which it exists.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Many opponents of gay marriage argue that if gays are allowed to marry, then that will create sexual chaos and justify polygamy, pedaphilia, and petaphilia. Yes, petaphilia (though you may be more familiar with the term bestiality).  For a fun and insightful read, check out this article from The Village Voice.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Okay, I know. I am a hypocrite. In early February, I posted a PULSE item that called for an end to the use of the “conservative” and “liberal” labels. Banish them to the dustbin of history, I said. They’ve worn out their utility. Yet I recently filed a 3,000-word story on Bush’s “Healthy Marriage” initiative, in which I used the word “conservative” no less than 15 times. To add to the outrage, I only used the word “liberal” twice. So I guess I only want to avoid pigeonholing when liberals are being pigeonholed. When it happens to conservatives … ehh, no big deal. They deserve it, anyway.

When someone cuts me off in traffic, I honk and shout profanities. But when I cut someone off and he honks at me, I get indignant. “Who does this guy think he is?”

If someone is tailgating me, he’s a reckless asshole. If I’m tailgating him, I’m just in a hurry.  

But hypocrisy loves company, so thank God I’m not alone.

John Kerry is filthy rich, but he advocates an equitable distribution of wealth. (At least Bush got rich the respectable way, by inheritance.) If you truly believe what you say, John, why not start distributing some of that wealth right now? It’s 20-minute walk to Beacon Hill; I can come and pick up a check. While I’m there, maybe you can explain the three mammoth, gas-chugging SUVs parked outside your door. How goes the struggle for energy independence?

And we can’t let Dubya off the hook. The man who brought integrity back to the White House didn’t exactly kick hypocrisy out. When Bush said to Tim Russert, “The policy of this administration is to be — is to be clear and straightforward,” he was already on thin ice. But then they had this exchange:

Tim Russert:  Will you testify before the commission?

President Bush:  This commission? You know, testify? I mean, I’d be glad to visit with them. I’d be glad to share with them knowledge. I’d be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.

I’m interested in getting — I’m interested in making sure the intelligence gathering works well.

Enough said. But pointing out Bush’s hypocrisies can get boring. Republicans have only been working on Kerry for a couple of months. Eventually, that will get old, too. In American politics, if you call your opponent a hypocrite, you’re only trying to make him look bad to voters. You certainly don’t expect them to start cultivating integrity.

When everyone is hypocritical, hypocrisy gets normalized. Without absolving ourselves of accountability, we have to acknowledge that we live in a culture that is astonished by real integrity. At best, we regard it as admirably eccentric (think Aaron Feuerstein) — at worst, kinda sad (Michael Dukakis). We like to throw accusations around, but we consider it naïve to expect anyone to change.

If we won’t insist on integrity from the candidates we support, how can we expect it from those we oppose? The next time you want to call someone a hypocrite, start with your favorite candidate and demand that he do something about it.

If you doubt that Kerry or Bush can be accused of hypocrisy, check out FactCheck.org.

henrypb

A Hypertextual Review of “City of God”

City of God (written by E.L. Doctorow, 2000) may have an experimental beginning that can be frustrating for some readers … don’t worry, though. As you travel into the narrative landscape, it slowly pulls together threads of meaning that create an evolving state of awareness; by page 50, you are recognizing clear patterns, and by pages 80-90, you have the names of the main characters down. Don’t let this frustrate you, this book is not a Bic Mac designed to be hastily gobbled down. Rather, it is a sumptuous feast for the senses and soul, a fulfilling meal designed to feed the spirit.  

It tackles the big issues of the 20th Century and creates a dazzling array of voices to bring this historical moment of the century’s end to dramatic life.  It is so searing when it hits on all engines; the descriptions of the city are very powerful, bringing a sense of the majestic aliveness of urban life and its chaotic sensory effect.  The portrayals of the past through a World War II Jewish ghetto and a young boy’s experiences are soul-shattering.  The relationship of the main characters in the New York present are vivid and real …

The last 100 pages are a powerful literary experience of the continuing importance of religion in our society, while also providing a no-holds-barred critique of the reactionary traditions that try to stop us from evolving as humans and as spiritual beings (in a very subtle storytelling manner).

If this sounds interesting, you might also be interested in Black Elk Speaks by John G. Neihardt, Nothing Sacred by Douglas Rushkoff, The Concept of the Foreign by Rebecca Saunders, The Infinite Conversation by Maurice Blanchot, and The Cunning of History by Richard Rubenstein … I read these books near the time I was reading City of God, and they all speak to the need for new modes of interpersonal human relations or a new spirituality for a changing world.

thivai

If you haven’t heard, Kobe Bryant’s accuser has spent the last day (and will spend Thursday as well) testifying about her sexual history in a Colorado courtroom. The purpose, we’re told, is to allow a judge to determine whether she should be forced to testify about her sex life during the trial.

My initial thought was, “How ridiculous. Why should this even be a consideration? (Not to mention, how horrible for this woman to have to share her sexual history with a courtroom full of strangers).” But then, I thought about it and realized that the alternative was for attorneys and so-called “expert” witnesses to discuss this woman’s sexual history without her input. Not that I think that this redeems this woman’s predicament. After all, forcing this woman to testify during the pre-trial phase isn’t exactly emancipating (at least, I wouldn’t suspect that to be the case). As far as I know, Kobe’s sexual history isn’t in question (his basketball savvy isn’t either, for the record).

In many ways, I feel like this woman is in an unenviable predicament. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. I don’t even know the issue at hand any longer is that of whether or not she was raped. The question, in many ways, seems to be about her credibility and her sexual history — not about Kobe (whom, if you weren’t aware, is actually the defendant in this case). That is extremely troubling. What does it say about our justice system when we have to determine whether the plaintiff is guilty until proven innocent before we determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty?

Laura Nathan-Garner

In response to Lyricalreckoner, polis writes:

Not to be pedantic, but you do realize that all Indians are not necessarily Hindus, right? Though your point about Hindu influence in Union City may still stand (there might be a large Hindu population there), it’s important to disentangle the idea that India is a Hindu Nation. This is something Hindu Nationalists would like you to believe, and they are becoming increasingly successful at this in and outside of India, but many other religious groups live in India besides Hindus and, moreover, India is officially a secular nation.

polis

I opened my San Francisco Chronicle Book Review section on Sunday and, to my surprise, I found a review of Charlie Chan Is Dead 2: At Home in the World.

It’s an anthology of Asian American fiction, but not the kind that’s been popping up at bookstores with regularity since Amy Tan hit the scene.

From the review by freelance writer Wesley Yang:  “Aha, Asian American fiction — another of those books about Mama’s damn dumplings, with wronged wives and prostitutes running around everywhere, and being ‘between two cultures,’ with Grandma spouting her infernal wisdom during endless mah-jongg games. This is precisely what this updated collection of contemporary Asian American fiction is not.”

Makes me want to read it.

chinoloco

PULSE writer Harry Mok isn’t the only one annoyed with Abercrombie’s t-shirts these days. Bob Wise, the Democratic governor of West Virginia, has sent  Abercrombie executives a letter criticizing t-shirts that say “It’s all relative in West Virginia,” a statement which Wise believes unfairly stereotypes the state as a “haven for incest.” Wise has demanded that Abercromie cease selling these shirts immediately and destroy all remaining shirts so that they cannot be sold on the black market.

Abercrombie executives, of course, refuse to do so, insisting that they love all 50 states. And apparently, Abercrombie shoppers love these t-shirts, which even before the hoopla, have been selling well — for a mere $24.50 (plus tax) each.

I’m not sure which is sadder — the fact that people are willing to pay so much for Abercrombie’s t-shirts, that Wise is so outraged when his constituents must have more pressing concerns, or that this story makes the national headlines in The New York Times in the year of what many are referring to as “the most important election of your life.”

Laura Nathan-Garner

Lyricalreckoner writes:

The mayor of San Francisco decides he can’t deny marriage licenses to men who want to marry men. Several years later, the city council in Temecula, Calif. – a town that’s become home to many fundamentalist Mormons – begins issuing marriage licenses to men who want to have several wives. Several years after that, the school board in Union City, Calif. – a town that’s become a haven for Hindus – alters the Pledge of Allegiance. The students in Union City’s public schools recite a pledge to “one nation under the gods.” All these changes are done in the name of equal rights, in accord – they say – with the state’s constitution.

If it’s no infringement of an atheist’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under one god, then it’s no infringement of a Catholic’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under many gods, right? If two men can marry one another, then a man can have six wives, right? After all, this is America, a place where diversity is honored.

Editor’s Note: To read another reader’s response to this comment, click here.

Mister Thorne

Vacuous editorials are always frustrating, and David Brook’s column in today’s New York Times is particularly bewildering.

The heart of Brook’s argument is that “Whether you believe in God or not, the Bible and commentaries on the Bible can be read as instructions about what human beings are like and how they are likely to behave. Moreover, this biblical wisdom is deeper and more accurate than the wisdom offered by the secular social sciences …”

While I find Brook’s argument to be unfounded and bizarre, he is, of course, entitled to his own views on religion and social science. Where I pick a quarrel is in his assertion that “thoroughly secularized listeners lack the mental equipment to even begin to understand” statements made by al-Qaeda. Secularism is not at the root of why certain segments of the American population — secular or otherwise — fail to understand the motivation of those who join al-Qaeda and why the movement has been so effectively terrifying. Religiosity does not necessarily make anyone understand the allure of a violent Islamist movement. Judging from the caliber of scholarship and the intellectual rigor he demonstrates in his article, I doubt that Mr. Brooks understands what drives individuals to join al-Qaeda.

By limiting his understanding of al-Qaeda as a purely religious organization, Mr. Books fails to understand the historical, economic, political, and cultural context that has given rise to Islamist movements and their extremist segments. Mr. Brooks fails to recognize that we must adopt a complex and kaleidoscopic view of the factors that contributed to the rise in Islamist movements and the allure of al-Qaeda.

There are many factors that contribute to anti-American sentiment and the resurgence in Islamist movements that began in the 1960s and 1970s that continue today.  These factors include: the Arab defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the failure of “modern secular nationalism,” the Egyptian-Israeli war and Arab oil embargo in 1973, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Wahhabi oil connection, the concrete consequences of modernization in the Muslim world such as rapid population growth, an increase in urban population, mass literacy, a large young segment of the population, and high poverty and unemployment rates. Gilles Kepel, in Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, offers an excellent explanation of the subject, and I would challenge Mr. Brooks and those who share his views to understand the social, political, and historical context for al-Qaeda and to grapple with why some individuals find joining al-Qaeda to be such an attractive option. Limiting such a movement to the sphere of religion is to fail to understand its context, appeal and motivation.  

Mimi Hanaoka

The brutal 1955 murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy who was killed for allegedly whistling at a white woman in Mississippi, catalyzed the civil rights movement. When his mother demanded that an open coffin funeral be held to show how badly her son had been beaten, the world took notice.

While the attention received by the case ensured that the problem of racism in the South couldn’t go ignored any longer, the trial of the two white men who allegedly murdered Till illuminated the racism inherent in the justice system. Tried before an all-white jury, the defendants were, of course, acquitted.

But thanks to Keith Beauchamp, a filmmaker who set out to interview several witnesses to the murder, family members and Congressional leaders are urging the Justice Department to reopen the case 50 years later. According to witnesses, there were as many as 10 men involved in Till’s murder.

If the case does in fact return to court, will it simply reopen old wounds? Will it show how far (or how little) the U.S. justice system has come in 50 years? Or will it simply set the record straight and bring some solace to Till’s family, as proponents of reopening the case hope?

Whatever happens, I’m guessing that the Till case redux still won’t be the trial of the new millenium or gain the attention its proponents desire. After all, the plaintiffs will have to compete with Kobe and Michael, and sadly, most Americans only seem to take notice of the justice system when a celebrity’s career is at stake.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Milt Bearden, who has 30 years of experience in the C.I.A.’s Directorate of Operations, claims in today’s New York Times that Al-Qaeda “is an ideological and spiritual movement rather than a cohesive, quantifiable foe.” Without dismissing Bearden’s statement, I want to draw attention to the fact that in his terrorist recruiting video tapes, Osama bin Laden constructs a political, and not spiritual, argument for waging jihad.

In order to both understand the political nature of the jihadist argument, and to gain a sense of the powerful nature of the propaganda, it is helpful to visit the section of the
Columbia International Affairs Online website that examines bin Laden’s recruiting video tape and offers insightful analysis and commentary on the subject.  

Fawaz Gerges, in his article “Eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden,” offers a thoughtful analysis of the bin Laden’s recruiting tapes.  Gerges writes: “portrayal of infant death and malnutrition in Iraq is used effectively to stress America’s brutality and Arab rulers’ culpability in this continuing tragedy.”

Without raising questions about the legitimacy of the above mentioned US actions, I want to underscore the fact that grievances regarding the United States and its foreign policy towards the Middle East and Muslim world that have been effectively co-opted and articulated by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden does appear in the videotape, he wears the white robes of a sheikh, he delivers speeches, and there certainly is a religious flavour to he video.  However, Richard Bulliet of Columbia University notes:  

“While religious appeals suffuse all three scenes and reference is made to the example of Muhammad and his early followers, the many and complex theological, social, and religious issues that surround discussions of jihad in Islamic intellectual history remain unmentioned.‘

What bin Laden presents in his propaganda is not a complex theological argument to wage jihad against America. Rather, his argument is a political one that draws on powerful imagery — the murder of a very young Palestinian boy named Muhammad Durra, women in Islamic dress being degraded by Israeli soldiers — and political frustration to demand that Muslims unite in an international jihad against impious governments and rescue the international Muslim community that is currently under attack. In bin Laden’s portrayal, the Saudi government is an irreligious puppet that is subservient to America and, as such, both the Saudi and the American governments are subject to jihad.  

To dismiss the call to jihad as a retrograde crusade against the western way of life is to be blind to the political and emotional arguments to wage international jihad that have been heard and answered to devastating effect.  

Mimi Hanaoka