Nerds vs. FOBs

So, I made a private resolution to myself, and possibly Magniloquence, that I would link more. And what does the blogoverse reward me with but a splendid confluence of entries. Ahem. Clearly I need to use or lose the SAT words, whatever.

There's a NY Times article about race and nerds. I haven't read it yet. But I've read two blog entries directly responding to the article. One at Sepia Mutiny and one at Rachel's Tavern.

Rachel reads nerdiness against whiteness. Examining the question of whether acting nerdy for people of color is acting white. And concludes, at least in the case of black nerds, Urkel you are clearly alive and well in the cultural imaginary, that it is not the same thing. There's something else other than whiteness that is not cool about nerds.

Ennis at Sepia Mutiny (who I like a lot a lot) raises another interesting point, that dovetails rather neatly with what Rachel is talking about. In a discussion of race and nerdiness, Asians have to be front and center, in my opinion by necessity, we're located right at the confluence of both things. Ennis's point is a good one, I think.

Growing up in New York City, we had nerds of all colors, sizes, shapes and flavors, but the median nerd was probably an immigrant kid of some sort. It didn’t matter where your parents came from, just that they weren’t born here and that you yourself may have emigrated as a kid.

Since I went to a geek high school, I grew up with Eastern European nerds, tons and tons of east Asian nerds, and yes, brown nerds. And it wasn’t about people definingthemselves against blackness — African nerds with their white short-sleeve shirts, slacks and ramrod straight posture were just as nerdy as an IITian or MITian around. [Which is precisely why “blackness” gets tricky when talking about immigrants - are you going to call African immigrants Oreos just because they don’t fit stereotypes of “black Americans”?]

As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to argue that brown nerds aren’t hyperwhite but ultrabrown. They weren’t trying to emulate the squarer parts of American culture, in fact they were uberdesi . They wore polyester short-sleeve shirts, coke bottle glasses, were very earnest and spoke grammatical english. And yes, before somebody brings up the distinction, they were not just geeks but pukka nerds.

However, brown nerds (and immigrant nerds in general) fall outside of the black-white dichotomy that Bucholtz sees at the heart of nerdiness. They’re not trying to “deny themselves the aura of normality that is usually one of the perks of being white,” they’re simply not white. Sure, that means that they don’t acquire the popular culture markers of being cool, many of which have to do with African-American culture, but that didn’t make them any closer to white culture either.

The overlap between FOB and nerd is a fascinating one to explore. I'm not convinced that they are the same thing. FOBs and nerds are most certainly both uncool. And there are nerds who are FOBs, however there are nerds who are not FOBs. Conversely there are FOBs who are not nerds. I.e. the Korean guys in puffy vests who smoked too much and stood around together in the hallways of my high school. FOBs perhaps, but nerds definitely not. The conflation of geek and nerd may come from the equation of Americanization and cool and immigrant = not cool. Which is where the term "boater" comes from, overtly Asian and not cool. I would even argue that the term "ghetto"(adj.) functions in a similar way.

However, Ennis makes an excellent point, that Asian nerds, and in particular immigrant nerds do not conform to American culture, as per the findings of this study (apparently.) What this means in my opinion, I'm not sure exactly, I'll have to think more about it.

Ethnically Ambiguous?

Ages and ages ago, I was reading about the Angelina Jolie as Marianne Pearl thing which made me think. I didn't get to really think those things through, because of the whole moving back to America thing. It's kind of interesting which ethnicities people deem acceptable to "substitute" other ethnicities for.

As far as I can tell, black and Asian characters are ethnicities you can't put white people in. Blackface and yellowface have been attempted in the past, but is generally barred from mainstream TV and movies, because it's in bad taste, and more importantly, someone might sue.

However there are a ton of other ethnicities that are apparently more fluid. For example, look at the career of Cliff Curtis, who, for those of you who are wondering, is Keisha Castle-Hughes's dad in Whale Rider.

Mr. Curtis, imdb.com reveals is Maori, however, his acting career reveals he played Pablo Escobar in Blow, Amir Abdullah in Three Kings, Shiekh Faddallah in The Insider, Claudio Perrini in Collateral Damage, and Mort Whitman in Spooked. So that means a Maori actor has played, a Latino character, an Iraqi character, an Italian character, and what I assume to be a white character.

My point is that there are certain roles that casting directors consider to be racially ambiguous enough to cast people not of those ethnicities, and that's ok. I mean, how many Arab characters are played by South Asian actors? Or Latino actors? And also vice versa? My guess is no casting director would put a Latino actor in the role meant specifically for an African American. With Asian characters, yellowface these days takes the form of cultural appropriation, rather than actual yellowface. Although Angry Asian Man tells me that Rob Schneider does yellowface in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. (This is complicated by the fact that Mr. Schneider is part Filipino. But you know, that's just an investigation for another time.) However clearly Latino roles, Native American roles, Pacific Islander roles, Arab roles, and I would guess South Asian roles, sometimes, are all up for grabs. I would even be curious if Filipinos would be included in this grab bag of brown. Apparently some brown people in the eyes of the viewing public all just look kind of the same.

On the other side of the equation, I find it kind of hilarious that in Disney cartoons, voices are assigned to ethnically specific actors. Well, sometimes. I mean I'm sure B.D. Wong and Ming Na Wen are happy for the residual pay they get from Mulan reruns, but still, what is so ethnically specific about an Asian American voice, and if there is one, why is Eddie Murphy in the movie?

And then of course, there are headtrippy, well ethnicity-wise anyway, movies like The Matrix, where a black man plays the Yoda/Mr. Miyagi role, and some part Asian guy, passing as white, takes on the Karate Kid role. Does Keanu Reeves count as Asian either? That's also a story for another time, I think.

So how about those Asians?

Man Asians sure are getting a lot of press coverage these days. In weird ways. I'm sure everyone has already heard about the two Stanford "students" already. Considering that they're both Asian American, it is kind of interesting to speculate about why they did what they did and how being Asian affects that. Particularly with Azia Kim, there might be all that family expectation which caused her to do it.

Azia Kim was similarly described as a "quiet Asian kid" much like other recent Asian American newsmakers. Whereas Elizabeth Okazaki was described as being loud and a nuisance, bringing herself to other people's attention. (Honestly she sounds like she needs some mental help.) And when people were asked about her, their comments really did reflect back the vibe of a quiet but forgettable Asian girl. There didn't seem to be much more in the comments than that she was a fairly nice girl and rather smart. The only thing missing is that her name isn't Grace Lee and as far as I know she doesn't play the violin. But does that have anything to do with anything? It's intriguing to think that it does. And the good old model minority myth is something us middle class Asians always like to pound our chests about. But at the same time I don't want to go there, because I'm just not sure if there is a connection.

I don't know what to think about this, honestly. Does their being Asian have anything to do with it? Does it have any influence on their behavior whatsoever? With Kim's story, I would argue that perhaps it does, at least some of the people who let her live in the building seemed to just sort of see her as the stereotype of the "quiet Asian girl" and let's be honest, how many people can tell them apart. But that's more of an effect on the people around her. Not so much on the girl, even if she (may or may not have) consciously exploited it. There are ways in which being invisible can have it's advantages. I know this myself from personal experience. (Actually Chang Rae Lee talks about this phenomenon in his book Native Speaker, but I'm nerding out here).

Anyway, does their ethnicity have anything to do with anything? It seems slightly less clear to me than Seung Hui Cho's ethnicity influencing his behavior (that would be a resounding NO, although I would argue that class may have played a role in the whole thing). Azia Kim did move into the Okada Asian American dorm. To me that says something, I'm not sure exactly what though.

What is this "The dark skinned Communist Mob?"

About a month ago, I was reading a post on Sepia Mutiny about the May Day protests. Although initially it irritated me, (actually it was a slightly stronger reaction than that, I had to close the window and come back to it later) it did give me some food for thought.

Those rallies were also in response to particularly harsh anti-immigration positions by some members of Congress (positions far less likely to pass with Democrats in charge). However, these demonstrations increasingly pose a problem for me. They are no longer just about immigration (to be fair I wonder if they ever were). They are rallies by the working class against the elite. I worry that conflating these two separate battles will lead to a maelstrom. I worry more that these battles will increasingly become inseparable and that we will start to move toward a culture as in Europe where class and race seem to be inextricably tied and often lead to violence. Our strongest defense against self-immolation as a nation is to fight to de-couple race and class.

The first question that comes to my mind is What, is this going to be race war then or class war? And if so, who is on whose side? And how are the conflation of race and class causing America to destroy itself?

Anyway, I think we've discussed race and class around here before. Abhi makes the point that because these rallies occurred on May Day (International Workers Day) this gave the rallies themselves Communist connotations. As well as, seeming to promote Latin American Nationalism.

Is waving the flag of Mexico and other Central and South American countries on a day traditionally associated with Communism the best way to secure rights for immigrants in this country? Doesn’t it do the cause more harm than good?

I have a couple thoughts on these things. Since, according to my understanding, these were protests having to do with demanding rights and recognition for undocumented immigrants, so there is necessarily a class element to the protest. Undocumented immigrants are employed largely by people who can afford to pay people to do things for them.

The race element is equally unavoidable, since the majority of undocumented immigrants come from Mexico or other parts of Central and South America, or Asia. Racism groups all people of a certain ethnic group together, characterizing them as the same stereotype regardless of class. Furthermore, since most undocumented immigrants come from the same places, there's obviously going to be a measure of solidarity, and perhaps resulting from that, nationalism or national pride.

As for the flag waving, well, what about the Irish flags waved at St. Patrick's Day parades? Those aren't perceived as threatening or communist, or nationalistic. Perhaps this is due to the day, but something tells me, from reading some of the 142 comments over at Sepia Mutiny, that part of the objection is, if you want Americans to accept you, quit flaunting your foreignness. Maybe they'll accept you then. (I have my own cynical doubts about this. Assimilation seems to have done most Asians no good, but I digress.)

What I found especially interesting about the comments was the difference in opinion there seemed to be about illegal immigration. And a rift which does seem to be to some extent class-based. I think that the commenter makes a pretty good point, do doctors from Delhi and migrant workers from Mexico have that much in common besides that they came to America from other places?

And the argument, is made, in the thread that in fact they do, both are subject to exploitation due to racism and/or their tenuous status as immigrants, documented or not.

However, clearly some of the commenters feel that there is a distinct difference between those immigrants who "have a right" to be here, and those who are undocumented. And the ones "who have a right to be here" have the right of it, keep your head down and assimilate, if you don't not only are you stupid, but you're also making other immigrants look bad.

I also found Abhi's comments about the use of socialism, or the trappings of socialism for immigrants' rights to be rather interesting. At least among white activists, there does seem to be a desire to support the underrepresented, as well as a communist-socialist agenda. I'm not a big fan of capitalism myself, I don't know if I'm entirely sold on communism either. (Not for the ideals so much as communism's track record when put into practice.) Is communism the best way to go? Would that really help people of color and the working class of America? And if it doesn't then why does it attract so many ethnic organizers and such to its banner? But at the same time, I don't really believe that capitalism and democracy are really doing that great either.

In any case, immigrants are by no means a united, or uniform group of people. And class does divide them, and their perceptions of America and themselves. I have a friend whose coworker is an Eastern European woman who will rant endlessly about the "Gypsies and how they are ruining Europe because they have too many babies." And according to my friend she has intuited that in America the equivalent to Gypsies are Mexicans, and so she will also rant about what is wrong with America is the Mexicans and how they have too many babies. I asked my friend if her coworker realizes the irony of what she is saying, since she is also an immigrant. And my friend said "No, I think she thinks she's different because she's white, educated, and has only one baby."

Food for thought in the morning

Ok, well it's probably not morning for you, dear reader, but it is for me. And I just had some coffee. (The dehydrated kind, I have really sunk so low.) A friend of mine sent me this article.

A Question Of Race Vs. Class
Affirmative Action For the Obama Girls?

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; A15


Barack Obama
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/barack-
obama/> doesn't think anyone should cut his two daughters any slack
when they apply to college -- not because of their race, at least. In
the unlikely event that the Obama family goes broke, then maybe.

In an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama waded into
the central issue of the affirmative action debate: race vs. class.
Perhaps typically, Obama's remarks were more Socratic than declarative.
He didn't really answer the question, he rephrased it. Maybe the way he
posed it, though, will lead to a discussion that's long overdue.

George Stephanopoulos asked Obama whether his daughters should be able
to benefit from affirmative action when the time comes for them to go to
college. The girls "should probably be treated by any admissions officer
as folks who are pretty advantaged," Obama said.

Stephanopoulos was driving at the question of whether race-based
affirmative action programs are still needed. Another way to frame the
issue is whether race or class is the more important factor in our
society. Are minorities who are raised in middle-class or wealthy homes
still held back by racism? Or should we now focus on socioeconomic
status as the principal barrier keeping people from reaching their
potential?

Obama's answer, basically, was yes. To both questions.

Obama has repeatedly gone on record as a supporter of affirmative
action. But "if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids
who are qualified to go to college can afford it," he said in the ABC
interview, "affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to
achieve racial equality in this society."

He seemed to side with those who think class predominates when he said,
"I think that we should take into account white kids who have been
disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have
what it takes to succeed."

It's hard to disagree with that proposition, especially as economic
inequality worsens in this country. Harvard University (where Obama went
to law school) has taken the lead in guaranteeing that money will not be
an obstacle for qualified low-income students.

But Obama seemed to agree with those who point to the lingering effects
of racism when he noted that "there are a lot of African American kids
who are still struggling, that even those who are in the middle class
may be first-generation as opposed to fifth- or sixth-generation college
attendees, and that we all have an interest in bringing as many people
together to help build this country."

That observation points to circumstances that have to be taken into
account. Diversity, in my view, is very much in the national interest.
But diversity is a process, not a destination. We have to keep working
at it. And since a college degree has become the great divider between
those who make it in this society and those who don't, affirmative
action in college admissions is one of the most powerful tools we have
to increase diversity.

The formal separate-but-equal framework is long gone, but de facto
separation and inequality persist. Minority students are
disproportionately disadvantaged by having to attend substandard primary
and secondary schools. Their parents are less likely to have attended
college and thus may not be familiar with all the things parents have to
do to make their children competitive when it comes time to apply for
college admission. And while racism is not the institutional and legal
straitjacket it was 50 years ago, it persists in subtler yet still
pernicious forms.

Yes, class is important. But race is, too, and while I hope we
eventually get to the point where race is irrelevant, we still have a
long way to go.

As for Obama's assessment of his daughters' privileged status, that's
just a statement of the obvious. With such Type A, high-wattage parents,
those girls probably will have the grades and test scores to get into
any college. And if they don't, they will benefit from a different
affirmative action program -- one that for many generations has ushered
the academically undistinguished scions of prominent families into the
nation's most selective colleges and universities.

Let's not pretend that college admissions has ever been a level playing
field. Obama graduated from Columbia; his wife, Michelle, from
Princeton. This means that at those two Ivy League schools, their
daughters will be "legacy" applicants, just like George W. Bush was at
Yale and legions of Kennedys have been at Harvard. Given the Obamas'
power and fame, admissions officers at the schools they attended -- and
probably at other elite schools, too -- are going to find a way to let
the Obama girls in.

Obama's response does sort of highlight one of those great loopholes in affirmative action. For the record, I generally support affirmative action. However, I think most people, at least those who went to expensive private schools at some point in their education, know that there are many rich people of color use the self identifying part of the app to exploit the system. And certainly my Distinguished Institution was much more concerned with shipping in photogenic bodies of color rather than focusing on giving tuition breaks to the truly disadvantaged. And that's not affirmative action was intended for, and certainly not what it should be used for.

Is Obama correct in saying that his daughters shouldn't get any breaks? I'm not really sure. I mean the writer of the article has a point, with a senator for a dad, and a (former) high powered lawyer for a mom, those two probably won't want for anything. And I agree, I've seen tons of extremely rich kids of color who were pretty much ignorant of their privilege and probably never saw it because money smoothed the way for them. However, I also resist the raising of class over race. Doing so makes this more palatable for white people, because they can avoid talking about race. That said, generally speaking, I generally have more in common with the working class white person than the rich person of color, in terms of everyday worries and the reality I live.

I don't think I'm going to come to any conclusion on this today.