three asian-american writers who seem 'obsessed' with racial identity; compulsively obsessed, secondarily obsessed, and enlightenedly obsessed
compulsive
marie myung-ok lee, article on mobylives
change-rae lee, interview
don lee, (quote 1) about his book, Country of Origin (quote 2) from his book, Country of Origin
marie myung-ok lee, article on mobylives
[...] a sea of white faces.
I was disappointed to find myself at yet another all–white literary event. However, born and raised in white–and–blond northern Minnesota, I felt eerily at home.
As an Asian [...]secondary
change-rae lee, interview
And this yearning for a national and cultural identity – that also appealed to me but that was secondary, frankly because it was really mostly the language.enlightened
don lee, (quote 1) about his book, Country of Origin (quote 2) from his book, Country of Origin
If you try to base identity on geography or nationality or even race and ethnicity, perhaps that's just another artifice.
She was never black enough, or Oriental enough, or white enough [...]
6 Comments:
Interesting range there, eh? Race may be an artifice, but it's not necessarily a mask one can remove.
Artifice or construct? Artifice seems like something a person wears to hide themselves. A construct, on the other hand, is built by others.
We exist as a web of interactions. Each individual brings their own preconcieved notions of race to their interactions. All individual preconceived otions differ by degrees from one another. The construct is faulty.
The artifice exists, too, though. Right? Public face and all of that. The artifice is there, and difficult to maintain. The construct is there and on unsteady footing. The web exists, and is moments away from collapsing.
The end is nigh.
preconcieved notions, I meant.
But, what of preconceived otions? The Atlantic? The Pacific? We must write about the preconceivec otions in our collaborative novel, Tongue of Bee.
Today my spelling is atrocious. Atrocious Otion.
In 1492, Columbus sailed the Otion Blew.
I think it's interesting that the 'enlightenedly obsessed' author called race a potential artifice. Obviously, one does not choose race; though one can choose to use it as a symbol to represent certain inner drives. (Yet it's possible that race and culture have helped create those inner drives).
Ultimately, I think racial identity is driven less by skin color and more by people’s needs to differentiate themselves from others. All people, regardless of race, use evidence from their life to bolster their individuality:
"My mother was an abusive alcoholic."
"My father was the richest man in town."
"Look at me, I cut off my thumb."
"I was the only Asian-American in my mid-western high school."
Whatever it might be...
When a person talks about hardships they've encountered, our ears perk up, and we tend to *feel* something, whether it's empathy, compassion, or at least interest, like we're listening to a great story.
So I think people use race as a means to express identity is because the people listening tend to react the most strongly toward stories of hardship – and because one’s race is often the most obvious thing about a person (especially if he is a minority), then it’s easy to claim it as a source of hardship.
White people have a hard time understanding this because white people haven't experienced racial hardship. White people say, “What makes you think you’ve got it so rough? I’ve suffered, too!” Yet racial/ethnic/religious struggles have been the most arduous throughout the history of civilization.
On the other hand, I think it's easier for a white person to view race objectively, and recognize when a non-white person is making a bigger deal of their race than they should.
TMWCB said, "We exist as a web of interactions. Each individual brings their own preconceived notions of race to their interactions."
I really like that, and I totally believe it. Especially in America. We live in a melting pot of cultural feedback. While it strengthens and broadens some, it confuses and scares others. Things are improving, though. I don’t think ‘The end is nigh’.
I think society can be divided into the following:
Racists
-- People who despise and fear other races and assume other races are inferior to their own.
Ignoramuses
-- People who assume other races are inferior to their own.
Prejudiced
-- People who assume other races have innate characteristics that are incompatible with their own, and are likely inferior as well.
Detached
-- People who don't think much about other races yet don't bother interacting with people from other races. If they must interact, they are at best curious, and at worst, suspicious.
Confrontational
-- People who recognize it is wrong to judge based on race, yet are so angry that racism exists they wear their race like a badge of honor, and adopt attitudes of superiority toward other races because of what those races have done to their race throughout history. (This is what I meant by feeling virtuous vis-à-vis suffering.)
Open/Embracing
-- People who judge a person solely on how they think and not how they look. Of course, everyone has certain racial prejudices, but the open/embracing types know that prejudices are temporal and inherited. The open/embracing types let the individual define themselves, and try to not to rely on generalizations.
I’m rambling now. I'm sure there are more categories, but this is what I came up with on the fly.
the man who couldn't:
i think a good name for a novel is
immaculate preconception
about someone with such perfect preconception of the way the world works that the novel ... never mind
yes
the end is nigh
karin:
i agree
i think other categories would be
ZEN: people who recognize that identity is a lie and are able to take that knowledge and live truthfully, without identity
DOOMED: people who think about a thing until they reach the conclusion that 'the end is nigh'
ZEN DOOMED: you combine the above two
Argh... this is a strange issue... race/gender/everything aside, I think I'm 'Zen Doomed' b/c regardless of how I identify msyelf, others are still going to perceive me in a certain way and treat me a certain way based on that and that, in turn, will affect the way I view myself whether I like it or not/conscious or not.
If I were a Buddhist monk and meditated every day on my sense of non-self, as soon as I went to buy oranges for offerings (since where do Korean monks get oranges?? You can't grow them out there!) people at the store would look at me as a Buddhist monk and treat me like a Buddhist monk and so, I'd probably act like a Buddhist monk would behave even though my meditations have revealed otherwise-- that maybe I'm really a giant stapler deep down.
Post a Comment
<< Home