An original version posted on 4/13/2009 as "White Guy Tough Talk: White Vandalism, Black Vandalism, 'Other Vandalism'" @ AMMMO
Highly fascinating candid camera via the Everyday Sociology Blog via ABC's 20-20. "Fascinating" meaning I'm extremely surprised that network TV actually does this kind of thing anymore.
In the first video, three white kids are smashing a car in a park. People's reactions? Numerous confrontations and suspicious eyes, but only one phone call to the police.
Incidentally, there was one phone call to the police from that same park, but it was about black kids sleeping in a Lexus. Apparently, they were planning to rob somebody.
In the second video, three black kids are smashing a car in the same park. People's reactions? Healthy distances and 10 calls to the police.
Ain't nothing we don't already know, except it was produced for a mass audience.
Observations on the experiment and one note about how the media handled the story:
1. Look out how far they were: When passersby went by the black vandals, seems like they were more likely to keep their distance, but take more action. Taking from Ruth Benedict, if I were to ascribe a personality to that context and pervading culture in that park in Ridgewood, NJ it seems to be that of passive-aggression.
Black kids weren't people to talk with. They were objects to be thrown at to the police system.
The passersby don't want to deal with it, but they "know" its wrong and want to outsource the engagements and handling to the police. Seems like the popular way in a highly outsourced, specialized society to deal with cultural, ethnic, and racial difference. Let somebody else handle it.
2. The Demographics of the people who did the confronting: There seemed to be a gender and racial divide within the people who actually chose to confront the kids. It's interesting how in the first video with the white kids, it was a bunch of white males that did the calling out, barking out tough guy police talk back at them. They didn't appear to be afraid to walk right up at them.
Meanwhile, in the second video with the black kids, its one white woman, a Latina woman, and an Asian lady jogger who actually confront the boys.
3. The newscast gave no credit to the Asian Lady. Also interesting within the broadcast itself is how the resident sociologist highlights the extreme courage of one of the white guys who confronted the white vandals with the assistance of his wife, but doesn't care to talk about the Asian lady who right went up to the black kids by herself and actually struck up a 4-minute conversation with them. Both pretty dangerous situations, but I guess the white guy tough talk is the only stuff worth showing on television and commenting on TV. Maybe if that Asian lady did it in a Geisha costume, she'd a gotten more air time.
No doubt that this is a pretty good popular revelation, but I wonder what the reaction is to Latino, Arab/Indian, and Asian kids doing the same.
Showing posts with label Understanding Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Understanding Media. Show all posts
Being Conscious of Your Own Race and Fitting In
An original version posted on 10/11/2008 as "Unconsciousness, Consciousness, Popular Discourse, Race, and the Presidential Election" @ throwascrewinit.blogspot.com
When I think of the word "consciousness", I think of Mos Def's line in his Close to the Edge Freestyle on the Chappelle Show.
He was talking about "conscious", meaning a state of knowing what's going on. He says "being conscious" is not really a state worthy of praise or congratulated for; it's just him simply being awake. By implication, this means he's noticing things.
Consciousness, specifically human consciousness was the main topic in the book the User Illusion by Tor Norretander.
The main thing I got from the book was that 80% of what we do is done unconsciously. Breathing, heart rate, thoughts, especially during sleep. Unconscious. We can sense a billion things a minute, but only a few bits actually enter our stream of thought and movement called our "consciousness."
I'm inclined to say that consciousness is about maintaining and exacting control. Consciousness acts so you don't go crazy processing every bit of information. It acts as yet another filter of information for the world around you.
Consciousness simplifies your life, your thought, emotion, movement process --- the way that the User Interface on your computer simplifies your life as a computer user.
You don't have to enter code just to do anything. You can click on your My Computer icon, the start button, which is nice, but there's so much work involved in making it look that easy. The binary coding, the programming language, the time it took to develop all that. That's all hidden.
Consciousness is like that user interface that hides a lot of those details like the binary code and the programming language.
One thing I notice is that what you do become conscious of, you're probably insecure about. Which brings me to self-consciousness.
I'm conscious right now about my math abilities.
Kanye West says he's so self-conscious, but he's the only one to admit it.
It's a bad thing in this socio-cultural milieu to be "self-conscious" because it means you're too worried about what people think. You don't act the way you want to because you're trying to control what people think about you. Or at least limit the bad thoughts.
When you become conscious, it seems like you don't really do anything but observe. The "I" part of you becomes active, but you cannot envision that "I" part of you committing to an action.
Basketball players, soccer players are said to be unconscious when they're making quick decisions with their respective balls. In those contexts, where timing is of the essence, you're not supposed to think, you're supposed to act. There is no room for pondering. There is no room for the "I" to perceive, and then decide to act because the moment is already over. Hesitation usually doesn't mean anything good in sports. The solution is to act before you think. Acting unconsciously.
Essentially, the book by Norretrander is about how happiness tends to happen more when we are unconsciously acting. Unconsciousness means we act rather than let the consciousness creep in and instill doubt.
Lets think again about what Mos Def said about consciousness.
Even outside of Mos Def's context, we use "consciousness" within urban contexts here in the US of A to indicate someone who seems to be thoughtful and knows about harsh realities. As opposed to someone who isn't conscious. By implication, a person who isn't conscious isn't thoughtful and skips over harsh realities.
There is even a demarcation of "conscious" hip-hop and non-conscious hip-hop. "Conscious hip-hop" is hip-hop that invokes thoughtfulness and harsh realities.
There seems to be a parallel between consciousness and harsh realities. Consciousness seems to recognize "harsh realities" all the time. With its recognition of harsh realities, it notices limitations as well. Consciousness by proxy notices limitations.
Consciousness. Realities. Limitations. Consciousness knows realities and knows limitations.
Acting unconsciously. Happiness. When you act unconsciously, you're generally happier.
Notice that we don't really care whether or not Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, or Paris Hilton are "conscious." I rarely hear that word used in any Hollywood Infotainment show. "Conscious."
It's probably because there's a kind of happy and upbeat discourse always surrounding them, regardless of what they actually are feeling. They live in an unconscious world where each of their missteps are exposed and judged harshly, yet anything positive they do, including losing 0.5 lbs of weight, is celebrated as an achievement. With the worlds they live in, they can fuck up royally,
When explaining why people are addicted to gossip about Hollywood celebrities, Danielle Fishel, formerly of Boy Meets World and apparently now a gossip host, said something to the effect of: "it's fun to follow their stories because their worlds are limitless." Limitless. Boundless. Unconscious. By implication, they have choices and can act on any whim, which makes their story more intriguing.
They get to act as unconsciously as they want.
Now that's something I wish I could do as a middle-class Filipino kid in America. I'm happy, but it feels like I have to walk on eggshells still. I have to carefully be something. I mean I wish I could just act ridiculous and stupid and then somehow bullshit my way into popularity. Or even something like the US presidency ala George W.
Only it feels like I can't. It feels like I can't just walk into a job interview and chum it up with old whitey.
No matter the qualifications or knowledge I have, I have to match an employer's "comfortability, fit" factor (or maybe that was just me). The employer is usually somebody white. It feels like I can't just be an Eric Kandel from Vienna who studies literature and history as an undergrad, becomes a psychiatrist in training, and becomes a Noble Prize winning neuroscientists. My point is that it seems like everyone's doing something unconsciously, except me.
I'm just sitting here consciously, and observing.
Now this brings me to a question of whether or not I could act unconsciously on my way into something like the US Presidency?
Would I as a Filipino middle-class kid be able to George W. Bush/Sarah Palin my way through anything en route to the presidency?
It feels like I have to do everything by the book while other people, namely the white folks and asskissers of color get by on a steady diet of bullshit. I feel like I've had to do things at a higher and tighter level, so good just to get something that white people could get with just a minimum of effort.
The same I could say about Barack Obama.
Community organizer from the creme-de-la-creme, professor, organizer, awesome communicator matching up against an old guy who is respectable but is probably going to continue the Bush push, and some lady who came out of nowhere and prides herself on being a hockey mom.
It feels like this presidential "race" shouldn't even be a competition anymore. However, the polls are close. He still seems to be walking on eggshells and is perpetually in doubt over the Bubba votes and the Bradley effect.
He's still defending against so many things: Reverend Wright, the unfettered linking of his middle name to Saddam's last name, the claims against his links to Islam.
All of these things shouldn't be issues, but have been made so, and he's had to straddle the line delicately to appease voters.
I think it took a lot of consciousness to play his positions the way he has. I do believe in his commitment to ALL working class folks. I really doubt he actually likes to support Israel, that he's actually steadfastly Christian, or that he's all for some kind of border security. Those seems like things in his form, his identity, that he consciously changed to make him palatable to broader demographics.
Not saying that's wrong, but that's how you win in politics --- more form than function. The right form to carry out the function. With the right form, the collective feels that it can unconsciously carry on with their functions.
When I think of the word "consciousness", I think of Mos Def's line in his Close to the Edge Freestyle on the Chappelle Show.
So, stop with the nonsense, like he conscious
I'm just awake dawg, I'm doin' great dawg
He was talking about "conscious", meaning a state of knowing what's going on. He says "being conscious" is not really a state worthy of praise or congratulated for; it's just him simply being awake. By implication, this means he's noticing things.
Consciousness, specifically human consciousness was the main topic in the book the User Illusion by Tor Norretander.
The main thing I got from the book was that 80% of what we do is done unconsciously. Breathing, heart rate, thoughts, especially during sleep. Unconscious. We can sense a billion things a minute, but only a few bits actually enter our stream of thought and movement called our "consciousness."
I'm inclined to say that consciousness is about maintaining and exacting control. Consciousness acts so you don't go crazy processing every bit of information. It acts as yet another filter of information for the world around you.
Consciousness simplifies your life, your thought, emotion, movement process --- the way that the User Interface on your computer simplifies your life as a computer user.
You don't have to enter code just to do anything. You can click on your My Computer icon, the start button, which is nice, but there's so much work involved in making it look that easy. The binary coding, the programming language, the time it took to develop all that. That's all hidden.
Consciousness is like that user interface that hides a lot of those details like the binary code and the programming language.
One thing I notice is that what you do become conscious of, you're probably insecure about. Which brings me to self-consciousness.
I'm conscious right now about my math abilities.
Kanye West says he's so self-conscious, but he's the only one to admit it.
It's a bad thing in this socio-cultural milieu to be "self-conscious" because it means you're too worried about what people think. You don't act the way you want to because you're trying to control what people think about you. Or at least limit the bad thoughts.
When you become conscious, it seems like you don't really do anything but observe. The "I" part of you becomes active, but you cannot envision that "I" part of you committing to an action.
Basketball players, soccer players are said to be unconscious when they're making quick decisions with their respective balls. In those contexts, where timing is of the essence, you're not supposed to think, you're supposed to act. There is no room for pondering. There is no room for the "I" to perceive, and then decide to act because the moment is already over. Hesitation usually doesn't mean anything good in sports. The solution is to act before you think. Acting unconsciously.
Essentially, the book by Norretrander is about how happiness tends to happen more when we are unconsciously acting. Unconsciousness means we act rather than let the consciousness creep in and instill doubt.
Lets think again about what Mos Def said about consciousness.
So, stop with the nonsense, like he conscious
I'm just awake dawg, I'm doin' great dawg
Even outside of Mos Def's context, we use "consciousness" within urban contexts here in the US of A to indicate someone who seems to be thoughtful and knows about harsh realities. As opposed to someone who isn't conscious. By implication, a person who isn't conscious isn't thoughtful and skips over harsh realities.
There is even a demarcation of "conscious" hip-hop and non-conscious hip-hop. "Conscious hip-hop" is hip-hop that invokes thoughtfulness and harsh realities.
There seems to be a parallel between consciousness and harsh realities. Consciousness seems to recognize "harsh realities" all the time. With its recognition of harsh realities, it notices limitations as well. Consciousness by proxy notices limitations.
Consciousness. Realities. Limitations. Consciousness knows realities and knows limitations.
Acting unconsciously. Happiness. When you act unconsciously, you're generally happier.
Notice that we don't really care whether or not Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, or Paris Hilton are "conscious." I rarely hear that word used in any Hollywood Infotainment show. "Conscious."
It's probably because there's a kind of happy and upbeat discourse always surrounding them, regardless of what they actually are feeling. They live in an unconscious world where each of their missteps are exposed and judged harshly, yet anything positive they do, including losing 0.5 lbs of weight, is celebrated as an achievement. With the worlds they live in, they can fuck up royally,
When explaining why people are addicted to gossip about Hollywood celebrities, Danielle Fishel, formerly of Boy Meets World and apparently now a gossip host, said something to the effect of: "it's fun to follow their stories because their worlds are limitless." Limitless. Boundless. Unconscious. By implication, they have choices and can act on any whim, which makes their story more intriguing.
They get to act as unconsciously as they want.
Now that's something I wish I could do as a middle-class Filipino kid in America. I'm happy, but it feels like I have to walk on eggshells still. I have to carefully be something. I mean I wish I could just act ridiculous and stupid and then somehow bullshit my way into popularity. Or even something like the US presidency ala George W.
Only it feels like I can't. It feels like I can't just walk into a job interview and chum it up with old whitey.
No matter the qualifications or knowledge I have, I have to match an employer's "comfortability, fit" factor (or maybe that was just me). The employer is usually somebody white. It feels like I can't just be an Eric Kandel from Vienna who studies literature and history as an undergrad, becomes a psychiatrist in training, and becomes a Noble Prize winning neuroscientists. My point is that it seems like everyone's doing something unconsciously, except me.
I'm just sitting here consciously, and observing.
Now this brings me to a question of whether or not I could act unconsciously on my way into something like the US Presidency?
Would I as a Filipino middle-class kid be able to George W. Bush/Sarah Palin my way through anything en route to the presidency?
It feels like I have to do everything by the book while other people, namely the white folks and asskissers of color get by on a steady diet of bullshit. I feel like I've had to do things at a higher and tighter level, so good just to get something that white people could get with just a minimum of effort.
The same I could say about Barack Obama.
Community organizer from the creme-de-la-creme, professor, organizer, awesome communicator matching up against an old guy who is respectable but is probably going to continue the Bush push, and some lady who came out of nowhere and prides herself on being a hockey mom.
It feels like this presidential "race" shouldn't even be a competition anymore. However, the polls are close. He still seems to be walking on eggshells and is perpetually in doubt over the Bubba votes and the Bradley effect.
He's still defending against so many things: Reverend Wright, the unfettered linking of his middle name to Saddam's last name, the claims against his links to Islam.
All of these things shouldn't be issues, but have been made so, and he's had to straddle the line delicately to appease voters.
I think it took a lot of consciousness to play his positions the way he has. I do believe in his commitment to ALL working class folks. I really doubt he actually likes to support Israel, that he's actually steadfastly Christian, or that he's all for some kind of border security. Those seems like things in his form, his identity, that he consciously changed to make him palatable to broader demographics.
Not saying that's wrong, but that's how you win in politics --- more form than function. The right form to carry out the function. With the right form, the collective feels that it can unconsciously carry on with their functions.
Speedy Gonzales and How He Influenced My Childhood Views of Latinos
An original version posted on 5/12/2010 as "Influence of Speedy Gonzales on my Perception of Latinos as a Kid" @ AMMMO
Looney Tunes was a fixture of 1990s Nickelodeon and my TV-watching experience as a kid.
I didn't particularly aim to watch Looney Tunes, but when it was on, I guess it was alright, it was something to keep me occupied.
Speedy Gonzales was a pretty prominent recurring character whose sole purpose was to make Sylvester the cat look stupid. I hated that, I really wanted the cat to finally catch that little mouse.
Speedy was just one in a line of physically little, quick-moving, thinking characters that included Jerry from Tom and Jerry, Tweety bird, the Roadrunner, and the kids who actually got the Trix in those commercials. These little, quick-moving characters were always elusive, and I couldn't help but be annoyed at each one of them.
I wonder if the 1950s narrative for these cartoon characters was structured so that we would dislike these nimble little characters. The storylines were constructed in a way in which you wondered if those physically little, quick-moving and thinking characters would get caught.
It was always a narrative of evasion (which probably fit in with the time). So while the characters looked physically defenseless, you knew they would always get away with something, almost like criminals.
The narratives never centered around the Speedy's, Tweety's, Roadrunners and a question of when they would overcome these big predatorial characters. It was about when the big predatory characters, the Sylvesters, the Trix Bunny, the Coyote, devising all kinds of plans, would finally win.
Speedy arguably had the most personality of all those little evasive characters. His personality was marked by his ethnicity, which was emphasized way beyond belief: he was undeniably, thoroughly Mexican, from the sombrero to the accent to the use of Spanish.
Arriba, arriba, andale, andale.
I remember going to Spanish class the first day of my freshman year in high school thinking, "I'm finally going to learn what those words mean!"
The video above of Speedy Gonzales is quite relevant to today's debate over immigration.
You've got the immigration boundary, the all-male "border crossers" trying to get cheese (i.e. "stealing our jobs"), and this ineffective "border defense", the cruder older stereotypes of the Latino lover, and immigrants as these opportunistic rats.
Based on current socially accepted rhetoric of "catching illegal immigrants", "breeders", and border patrol video games, I wonder how people might've been influenced in their thinking by mere "entertainment."
People say Looney Tunes was "just" a cartoon, entertainment, as if thoughts can be neatly packaged away into separate compartments of our brains, not ever influencing things like our political beliefs or views on race.
I think things in general would be much easier if our brains actually were structured that way. But our brains are not computers and as was pointed out by Gary Marcus in his book Kluge, our brains are imperfect. This means we are not always rational, controlled, and we don't always act the way we intend to. So we may not always have the most perfectly formed opinions.
Our opinions on politics and race today might've originated from something we don't remember or don't really like to admit. We often don't remember the sources of these beliefs, but we cling to them because they are convenient and our lifestyles have been built around them. I think very few people if any are convinced to change beliefs based on hard, cold factual or statistical arguments. If anything, for both sides of any argument, tools like statistics are just rhetorical weapons wielded from high-minded individuals to convince everyone of their personal extreme rationality.
I tend to think that most opinions on politics, race, even sports originate in early motivations developed from emotional reactions. Our emotional reactions develop from social environments and communities.
I don't think people in general realize how irrationally formed some of their beliefs and perceptions are, particularly those involving race, ethnicity, and politics. I think most people, particularly those who aren't made conscious of their race and ethnicity, latch on to certain beliefs and stereotypes of other races and ethnicities early on in their lives.
As a kid, Speedy stirred up a sentiment of annoyance in me. He was so annoyingly evasive. So I disliked him. By association, I ended up not liking some of his traits, like the fact that he was dirty brown or spoke "broken" English.
I knew that not every Mexican actually talked or acted like Speedy or his friends, but I felt like some of the way they speak was what I observed the way some Latinos in real life spoke and were generally dirty-looking, especially the jornalero types. The stereotype had a grain of truth, I thought.
And so in grade school, when I went to a neighborhood friend's house who was Guatemalan, I saw that he was brown and lived pretty dirtily, unconsciously confirming a stereotype. The friends he brought over from public school were also dirty, especially when one time they played on my makeshift kiddy basketball court, and my finger accidentally touched on dude's tongue. I sniffed my finger and it smelled foul.
Later in grade school for a school project, I had to go to a Mexican's house. I was almost pleasantly surprised to find out how clean he was because he was sort of a big dude and always kinda smelled foul.
I wasn't out there pointing this out to either one of my friends; these were just things running in my head --- caricatures of little dirty brown Speedy Gonzales juxtaposed with confirmed stereotypes of real life people.
It's not like I had anything else in my streaming experience of television, school, or real life experience (in LA no less) to dispel these wholly irrational caricatures of Mexicans/Latinos.
All I knew is that it was wrong to discriminate against any of them or any people or say bad things about them (or any other people of color, much like myself).
All I learned was not to intentionally do bad things around them or anyone else, and everything would be alright.
I didn't learn exactly how to be cool with them, what good food they had, how clean most of them were, you know stuff that we could actually connect on. All I learned was how to joke about their different stereotypes and not take those too seriously.
The problem with the widespread public idea that Speedy Gonzales is "just entertainment" or was about "jokes" is that I'm not sure there is much out there to make a better attempt at representing Mexicans for other people. It's as if their non-White racial and ethnic categories are only out there to be punchlines and caricatures. I could probably tell you more about how annoying Speedy G. than how great Cesar A was.
Looney Tunes was a fixture of 1990s Nickelodeon and my TV-watching experience as a kid.
I didn't particularly aim to watch Looney Tunes, but when it was on, I guess it was alright, it was something to keep me occupied.
Speedy Gonzales was a pretty prominent recurring character whose sole purpose was to make Sylvester the cat look stupid. I hated that, I really wanted the cat to finally catch that little mouse.
Speedy was just one in a line of physically little, quick-moving, thinking characters that included Jerry from Tom and Jerry, Tweety bird, the Roadrunner, and the kids who actually got the Trix in those commercials. These little, quick-moving characters were always elusive, and I couldn't help but be annoyed at each one of them.
I wonder if the 1950s narrative for these cartoon characters was structured so that we would dislike these nimble little characters. The storylines were constructed in a way in which you wondered if those physically little, quick-moving and thinking characters would get caught.
It was always a narrative of evasion (which probably fit in with the time). So while the characters looked physically defenseless, you knew they would always get away with something, almost like criminals.
The narratives never centered around the Speedy's, Tweety's, Roadrunners and a question of when they would overcome these big predatorial characters. It was about when the big predatory characters, the Sylvesters, the Trix Bunny, the Coyote, devising all kinds of plans, would finally win.
Speedy arguably had the most personality of all those little evasive characters. His personality was marked by his ethnicity, which was emphasized way beyond belief: he was undeniably, thoroughly Mexican, from the sombrero to the accent to the use of Spanish.
Arriba, arriba, andale, andale.
I remember going to Spanish class the first day of my freshman year in high school thinking, "I'm finally going to learn what those words mean!"
The video above of Speedy Gonzales is quite relevant to today's debate over immigration.
You've got the immigration boundary, the all-male "border crossers" trying to get cheese (i.e. "stealing our jobs"), and this ineffective "border defense", the cruder older stereotypes of the Latino lover, and immigrants as these opportunistic rats.
Based on current socially accepted rhetoric of "catching illegal immigrants", "breeders", and border patrol video games, I wonder how people might've been influenced in their thinking by mere "entertainment."
People say Looney Tunes was "just" a cartoon, entertainment, as if thoughts can be neatly packaged away into separate compartments of our brains, not ever influencing things like our political beliefs or views on race.
I think things in general would be much easier if our brains actually were structured that way. But our brains are not computers and as was pointed out by Gary Marcus in his book Kluge, our brains are imperfect. This means we are not always rational, controlled, and we don't always act the way we intend to. So we may not always have the most perfectly formed opinions.
Our opinions on politics and race today might've originated from something we don't remember or don't really like to admit. We often don't remember the sources of these beliefs, but we cling to them because they are convenient and our lifestyles have been built around them. I think very few people if any are convinced to change beliefs based on hard, cold factual or statistical arguments. If anything, for both sides of any argument, tools like statistics are just rhetorical weapons wielded from high-minded individuals to convince everyone of their personal extreme rationality.
I tend to think that most opinions on politics, race, even sports originate in early motivations developed from emotional reactions. Our emotional reactions develop from social environments and communities.
I don't think people in general realize how irrationally formed some of their beliefs and perceptions are, particularly those involving race, ethnicity, and politics. I think most people, particularly those who aren't made conscious of their race and ethnicity, latch on to certain beliefs and stereotypes of other races and ethnicities early on in their lives.
As a kid, Speedy stirred up a sentiment of annoyance in me. He was so annoyingly evasive. So I disliked him. By association, I ended up not liking some of his traits, like the fact that he was dirty brown or spoke "broken" English.
I knew that not every Mexican actually talked or acted like Speedy or his friends, but I felt like some of the way they speak was what I observed the way some Latinos in real life spoke and were generally dirty-looking, especially the jornalero types. The stereotype had a grain of truth, I thought.
And so in grade school, when I went to a neighborhood friend's house who was Guatemalan, I saw that he was brown and lived pretty dirtily, unconsciously confirming a stereotype. The friends he brought over from public school were also dirty, especially when one time they played on my makeshift kiddy basketball court, and my finger accidentally touched on dude's tongue. I sniffed my finger and it smelled foul.
Later in grade school for a school project, I had to go to a Mexican's house. I was almost pleasantly surprised to find out how clean he was because he was sort of a big dude and always kinda smelled foul.
I wasn't out there pointing this out to either one of my friends; these were just things running in my head --- caricatures of little dirty brown Speedy Gonzales juxtaposed with confirmed stereotypes of real life people.
It's not like I had anything else in my streaming experience of television, school, or real life experience (in LA no less) to dispel these wholly irrational caricatures of Mexicans/Latinos.
All I knew is that it was wrong to discriminate against any of them or any people or say bad things about them (or any other people of color, much like myself).
All I learned was not to intentionally do bad things around them or anyone else, and everything would be alright.
I didn't learn exactly how to be cool with them, what good food they had, how clean most of them were, you know stuff that we could actually connect on. All I learned was how to joke about their different stereotypes and not take those too seriously.
The problem with the widespread public idea that Speedy Gonzales is "just entertainment" or was about "jokes" is that I'm not sure there is much out there to make a better attempt at representing Mexicans for other people. It's as if their non-White racial and ethnic categories are only out there to be punchlines and caricatures. I could probably tell you more about how annoying Speedy G. than how great Cesar A was.
Oh, Now There Are Male Filipino Role Models
An original version posted on 11/16/2009 as "Filipino Male Role Models in the Present Day: Manny Pacquiao" @ AMMMO
It's a different day than what I experienced as a kid.
This is a day of high interconnectivity, instant and constant information from just about any source. I'm not just restricted to the TV and/or the newspapers to see what's big. Today its Google, blogs, tweets, message boards, UStream, youtube feeding me information about any and everything. With such interconnectivity comes more of an aura of global consciousness, and seamless integration of diverse-LOOKING individuals into advertisements, everyday news ephemera, and populist conversation.
That was very difficult to find as a kid. The news on TV, the people whose stories were talked about were all white people. I wondered why my family or other people of color wouldn't be interviewed by Dateline or 20/20. Guess we were not interesting enough? We weren't real Americans to be talked about? It was such a feeling of invisiblity.
As a preteen, pre-internet, as I mentioned in this post about Filipino male role models as a kid, I used to keep an eye out for Filipinos who "made it," that is Filipinos who've been seen by lots of people, doing something cool and somewhat positive.
I was cheering my ass off when I saw Ernie Reyes Jr. make a slight appearance in the Rock's crappy movie, the Rundown. And that was as a grown-ass 19-year old kid in 2003.
Why have "role models" in the first place?
Perhaps as a source of inspiration to do something.
Why a celebrity?
Because they're doing it for lots of people to see. It's nice seeing them being validated in the public and popular spheres like the newspaper articles, the TV shows, etc, and it makes me think, "hey I kind of have the same background as that guy, I can do like he does! Perhaps even better!"
Why did it have to be a celebrity emphasizing a racial or ethnic connection or kinship?
Because it's hard to imagine yourself doing something successfully and/or finding inspiration if the people doing what you want to do don't exactly look, talk, perhaps even think like you.
If you haven't seen people with whom you can identify with do something successful, you're probably susceptible to an inferiority complex --- you're not tall enough to play basketball, you don't talk white enough, you don't know much about politics, you don't sound that "professional" to really fit in with this program --- this is all stuff that has crossed my mind plenty of times.
While Filipinos were coming up in boxing, now that we have the mega-superstar Manny Pacquiao, there seems to be more Filipinos interested in boxing, and more opportunity in general for Filipinos to be in conversation. As a result of this fight, anyone think that these Filipino news reporters are even given the same platform on HBO to speak their opinion on what will happen in the fight?
If its true that I'd be susceptible to inferiority complexes if I don't see anyone someone I can identify with, why can't I just identify with anybody so I can get over my obssession with other Filipinos?
I'm not sure if its a conscious decision to choose anyone I can identify with.
I identify with plenty of people that are not Filipino, but usually only after I've come to learn their story. I particularly identify with Albert Einstein's story of working as a lowly patent clerk while drawing up his theory of relativity. I identify with Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel's story of being a humanities student entering the sciences and being acknowledged for his work on neurobiological memory. I can identify with Kirk Hinrich's habits on the basketball court, the Unabomber's thoughts on technology --- just as I get to know more stories, there's usually something I can identify with in another human person.
However, the ethnic category of "Filipino" instantly brings to those of us who've grown up with Filipinos a sense that we share the same story. "Instantly" is the key word. I don't have to go out and bump across an individual story to identify with if someone identifies themselves as Filipino (at least in the American context of where I sit), I can sort of understand where they might be coming from already, so I'm going to bust out my Tagalog and hopefully they can get what the hell I'm saying. It's exciting that there is now consciousness of the word "Filipino" worldwide and its associated stories can be brought out for the rest of the world to see. I never felt as much chill in the back in Lupang Hinirang until that group sang it before Pacquiao-Cotto.
Didn't have anything to do with the greatness off their voices, it's just a great feeling of having something that may act as a hindrance in some context (like fitting in with job interviews, social situations) being acknowledged and respected.
The Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao, the Filipino-Americans in the Jabbawockeez, that Filipino-Irish basketballer Erik Spoelstra, all are people I can sort of look up to as strong, cool, knowledgeable, and they all roughly come from where I come from. These are Filipinos who have appeared at one time or another on the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America, Regis and whoever, ESPN, CNN, MTV, channels, networks watched by a diversity of people, who have to acknowledge our existence.
I can infer those Filipinos, Manny, the Jabbawockeez, and Erik Spoelstra probably may have eaten some adobo, are hardwired to play basketball, can bust some lines in Tagalog --- stuff that I do! And that's where I feel connected to their stories even though I might not know it as well as I do an Einstein or an Eric Kandel. The trajectory of their storylines as Filipinos are shooting towards success and widespread acceptance by other respected people in what they choose to do. Brian Urlacher, Magic Johnson, Derek Jeter, Mario Lopez, P.Diddy, Jay-Z, Mariah Carey, all people I've seen and admired at one point or another coming out to see this 5'6 cross-eyed, humble, happy, simple-seeming brown guy knock out another relatively small brown guy.
Said 5'6, cross-eyed, humble, happy, simpleton is now entering conversations and comparisons to icons like Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson --- boxers I've only known through pictures, stories, and myths. Whoever thought a lil ugly brown guy with boxing gloves could hold such sway and become so admired?
It's a different day than what I experienced as a kid.
This is a day of high interconnectivity, instant and constant information from just about any source. I'm not just restricted to the TV and/or the newspapers to see what's big. Today its Google, blogs, tweets, message boards, UStream, youtube feeding me information about any and everything. With such interconnectivity comes more of an aura of global consciousness, and seamless integration of diverse-LOOKING individuals into advertisements, everyday news ephemera, and populist conversation.
That was very difficult to find as a kid. The news on TV, the people whose stories were talked about were all white people. I wondered why my family or other people of color wouldn't be interviewed by Dateline or 20/20. Guess we were not interesting enough? We weren't real Americans to be talked about? It was such a feeling of invisiblity.
As a preteen, pre-internet, as I mentioned in this post about Filipino male role models as a kid, I used to keep an eye out for Filipinos who "made it," that is Filipinos who've been seen by lots of people, doing something cool and somewhat positive.
I was cheering my ass off when I saw Ernie Reyes Jr. make a slight appearance in the Rock's crappy movie, the Rundown. And that was as a grown-ass 19-year old kid in 2003.
Why have "role models" in the first place?
Perhaps as a source of inspiration to do something.
Why a celebrity?
Because they're doing it for lots of people to see. It's nice seeing them being validated in the public and popular spheres like the newspaper articles, the TV shows, etc, and it makes me think, "hey I kind of have the same background as that guy, I can do like he does! Perhaps even better!"
Why did it have to be a celebrity emphasizing a racial or ethnic connection or kinship?
Because it's hard to imagine yourself doing something successfully and/or finding inspiration if the people doing what you want to do don't exactly look, talk, perhaps even think like you.
If you haven't seen people with whom you can identify with do something successful, you're probably susceptible to an inferiority complex --- you're not tall enough to play basketball, you don't talk white enough, you don't know much about politics, you don't sound that "professional" to really fit in with this program --- this is all stuff that has crossed my mind plenty of times.
While Filipinos were coming up in boxing, now that we have the mega-superstar Manny Pacquiao, there seems to be more Filipinos interested in boxing, and more opportunity in general for Filipinos to be in conversation. As a result of this fight, anyone think that these Filipino news reporters are even given the same platform on HBO to speak their opinion on what will happen in the fight?
If its true that I'd be susceptible to inferiority complexes if I don't see anyone someone I can identify with, why can't I just identify with anybody so I can get over my obssession with other Filipinos?
I'm not sure if its a conscious decision to choose anyone I can identify with.
I identify with plenty of people that are not Filipino, but usually only after I've come to learn their story. I particularly identify with Albert Einstein's story of working as a lowly patent clerk while drawing up his theory of relativity. I identify with Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel's story of being a humanities student entering the sciences and being acknowledged for his work on neurobiological memory. I can identify with Kirk Hinrich's habits on the basketball court, the Unabomber's thoughts on technology --- just as I get to know more stories, there's usually something I can identify with in another human person.
However, the ethnic category of "Filipino" instantly brings to those of us who've grown up with Filipinos a sense that we share the same story. "Instantly" is the key word. I don't have to go out and bump across an individual story to identify with if someone identifies themselves as Filipino (at least in the American context of where I sit), I can sort of understand where they might be coming from already, so I'm going to bust out my Tagalog and hopefully they can get what the hell I'm saying. It's exciting that there is now consciousness of the word "Filipino" worldwide and its associated stories can be brought out for the rest of the world to see. I never felt as much chill in the back in Lupang Hinirang until that group sang it before Pacquiao-Cotto.
Didn't have anything to do with the greatness off their voices, it's just a great feeling of having something that may act as a hindrance in some context (like fitting in with job interviews, social situations) being acknowledged and respected.
The Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao, the Filipino-Americans in the Jabbawockeez, that Filipino-Irish basketballer Erik Spoelstra, all are people I can sort of look up to as strong, cool, knowledgeable, and they all roughly come from where I come from. These are Filipinos who have appeared at one time or another on the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America, Regis and whoever, ESPN, CNN, MTV, channels, networks watched by a diversity of people, who have to acknowledge our existence.
I can infer those Filipinos, Manny, the Jabbawockeez, and Erik Spoelstra probably may have eaten some adobo, are hardwired to play basketball, can bust some lines in Tagalog --- stuff that I do! And that's where I feel connected to their stories even though I might not know it as well as I do an Einstein or an Eric Kandel. The trajectory of their storylines as Filipinos are shooting towards success and widespread acceptance by other respected people in what they choose to do. Brian Urlacher, Magic Johnson, Derek Jeter, Mario Lopez, P.Diddy, Jay-Z, Mariah Carey, all people I've seen and admired at one point or another coming out to see this 5'6 cross-eyed, humble, happy, simple-seeming brown guy knock out another relatively small brown guy.
Said 5'6, cross-eyed, humble, happy, simpleton is now entering conversations and comparisons to icons like Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson --- boxers I've only known through pictures, stories, and myths. Whoever thought a lil ugly brown guy with boxing gloves could hold such sway and become so admired?
The Only Filipino I Saw in US Media Growing Up
An original version posted on 11/2/2009 as "Conrado Baylon Fiel: My Filipino Role Model Growing Up" @ AMMMO
When I was 9 years old, I knew that unless it was news-related or on Filipino news, it was a bit of a pipe dream to see Filipinos regularly on television, magazines, or newspapers.
It was as if no one knew my race and ethnicity existed, though I did see a lot of them in grade school and was surrounded by them. But I knew that they wouldn't be on the LA Times (least till my sister got into the Orange County Edition in 1994) or Eyewitness News or anything. That was a black and white dominated world. And if they did have to acknowledge Asians, it would be the Chinese. Filipinos, in my opinion, were too ordinary and boring to do anything cool.
It would be an event every time I saw some Filipno on any kind of any medium at all. I was thrilled to see Mr. Dante "Bang-a-Rang" Basco play Peter Pan's sidekick, even though he was kind of a bad guy.
But that was only one time. Basco played a fictional character, and kind of a bad guy to boot. That was all there was to him after that movie. He never showed up again. Back in 1993, there was no sense of character to him, there would be no back-story, there wasn't any googling his name to see what he was up to now. That was the end of Dante Basco, at least until the explosion of the internets and community events. So for a while, he was just kind of an afterthought of a Filipino.
Same thing with Ernie Reyes Jr. whose had one of the more successful careers in Hollywood as a Filipino martial artist and played the protagonist in Surf Ninjas, my most favoritest movie of all time as a 9-year old.
In my most formative preteen years, there weren't many real-life Filipinos to look at over and over again as heroes. I thought Filipinos were really boring people who would always be ignored until...
This guy...
Conrado Baylon Fiel!
Found...
In this book...
I knew clearly that this was a bad guy book and other than Street Fighter it was the first time I remember seeing Latinos and Middle Eastern people being in print as well.
"Victor Manuel Gerena, that guy looks like the Mexican who lives next door!"
"Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, kinda looks like Scottie Pippen, but he comes from the Middle East. You know *a far away place where they cut off your eat, if they don't like your face (quoted from Aladdin)"
It was compelling reading. Or perhaps intent staring and voyeurism - trying to see the criminal traits inherent within their faces. Very 1890s-esque, except adjusted to reflect America's trans-national diversity. It was also interesting how they didn't put any of the women on this cover, even though there was one in the book.
The statistics and descriptions this book gave about each of them made it look like a Street Fighter Profile or a basketball card
Place of Birth
Height
Weight
Highlights
Of course none of these individuals were heroes, nonetheless it was compelling for me.
The Filipino guy's profile (2nd place was the Chinese guy following him) is what I stared at the most, complete with Street Fighter II-esque attributes and descriptions.
That "swarthy, heavyset" Fiel could've been an uncle of mine! Matter of fact, every time I ran into Mr. Galicia, one of my friends' dads, I thought of Conrado. His skin color probably looked like my dads, and he was born around the same time my mom and dad were born too! In the 2nd picture, he even actually kinda looked like my dad. Filipinos wouldn't be just boring, regular people who liked to folk dance and become nurses, they could be murderers on the FBIs Most Wanted List as well!
I didn't see too many Filipinos at all in print unless it was in the Los Angeles Asian Journal, but this one book was different. It was 25 cent pocket book that was in wide circulation! It would be read by lots of people, even white people, standing in line at the supermarket.
When I was 9 years old, I knew that unless it was news-related or on Filipino news, it was a bit of a pipe dream to see Filipinos regularly on television, magazines, or newspapers.
It was as if no one knew my race and ethnicity existed, though I did see a lot of them in grade school and was surrounded by them. But I knew that they wouldn't be on the LA Times (least till my sister got into the Orange County Edition in 1994) or Eyewitness News or anything. That was a black and white dominated world. And if they did have to acknowledge Asians, it would be the Chinese. Filipinos, in my opinion, were too ordinary and boring to do anything cool.
It would be an event every time I saw some Filipno on any kind of any medium at all. I was thrilled to see Mr. Dante "Bang-a-Rang" Basco play Peter Pan's sidekick, even though he was kind of a bad guy.
But that was only one time. Basco played a fictional character, and kind of a bad guy to boot. That was all there was to him after that movie. He never showed up again. Back in 1993, there was no sense of character to him, there would be no back-story, there wasn't any googling his name to see what he was up to now. That was the end of Dante Basco, at least until the explosion of the internets and community events. So for a while, he was just kind of an afterthought of a Filipino.
Same thing with Ernie Reyes Jr. whose had one of the more successful careers in Hollywood as a Filipino martial artist and played the protagonist in Surf Ninjas, my most favoritest movie of all time as a 9-year old.
In my most formative preteen years, there weren't many real-life Filipinos to look at over and over again as heroes. I thought Filipinos were really boring people who would always be ignored until...
This guy...
Conrado Baylon Fiel!
Found...
In this book...
I knew clearly that this was a bad guy book and other than Street Fighter it was the first time I remember seeing Latinos and Middle Eastern people being in print as well.
"Victor Manuel Gerena, that guy looks like the Mexican who lives next door!"
"Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, kinda looks like Scottie Pippen, but he comes from the Middle East. You know *a far away place where they cut off your eat, if they don't like your face (quoted from Aladdin)"
It was compelling reading. Or perhaps intent staring and voyeurism - trying to see the criminal traits inherent within their faces. Very 1890s-esque, except adjusted to reflect America's trans-national diversity. It was also interesting how they didn't put any of the women on this cover, even though there was one in the book.
The statistics and descriptions this book gave about each of them made it look like a Street Fighter Profile or a basketball card
Place of Birth
Height
Weight
Highlights
Of course none of these individuals were heroes, nonetheless it was compelling for me.
The Filipino guy's profile (2nd place was the Chinese guy following him) is what I stared at the most, complete with Street Fighter II-esque attributes and descriptions.
That "swarthy, heavyset" Fiel could've been an uncle of mine! Matter of fact, every time I ran into Mr. Galicia, one of my friends' dads, I thought of Conrado. His skin color probably looked like my dads, and he was born around the same time my mom and dad were born too! In the 2nd picture, he even actually kinda looked like my dad. Filipinos wouldn't be just boring, regular people who liked to folk dance and become nurses, they could be murderers on the FBIs Most Wanted List as well!
I didn't see too many Filipinos at all in print unless it was in the Los Angeles Asian Journal, but this one book was different. It was 25 cent pocket book that was in wide circulation! It would be read by lots of people, even white people, standing in line at the supermarket.
The Racial Identity of Your Favorite Sports Protagonist Does Matter
An original version posted on 2/3/2008 as "Your Leader's Identity" @throwascrewinit.blogspot.com
In the American team sports that I follow both on TV and online be it the NBA, NCAA football, or the NFL, I see black, white, pacific Island, Spanish-speaking players and coaches emerging all the time. It’s nice because I definitely didn’t see much of that growing up, if at all.
Growing up and not seeing my culture, my people represented was the kind of thing that made me question why the hell I had to be Filipino.
Why did I have to be a culture that no one’s heard or talked about? Nowhere to be seen on ESPN. How the heck would I ever become famous or even get on a newspaper (where I wasn’t being described as a murder suspect or an FBI wish list) with a name like I had? Delas Armas anyone? Could they even fit that in the back of a jersey? We used to joke that the last name Delespiritusanto on the back of a jersey would have to come full circle.
However, At least nowadays in sports, I’m seeing little trinklets of multiculturalism. More folks from different races and ethnicities in sports representing.
While that counts as a few steps forward, I ask myself what power do these people of yellow, black, brown-skinned identities hold?
When observing fans of all sports on message boards, forums, comments after articles, I noticed one thing: people really really love the idea of the white guy as the head honcho, top dog, the leader. People will fight hard to have the white guy be the guy on top.
It’s why a white guy like Kirk Hinrich, the Chicago Bulls’ point guard automatically gets compared to players like Steve Nash, the NBA MVP and hall-of-famer John Stockton, despite not having any of their abilities AT ALL.
Those guys were actually known for passing the ball, and making good decisions with the ball.
From my own observation, Hinrich did/does little of the described activities above. Instead, Hinrich dribbles the basketball aimlessly around the court, and panics when time is running out. The man is nowhere near their class and basically has earned his prestige because he shares their pigmentation in a league where the pigmentation is generally much darker.
The guy is not even that good on this team. He’s had his starting spot on the team saved for him ever since he’s been a rookie — he’s the only guy in the Bulls backcourt who hasn’t had to fight for playing time despite his lack of actual impact.
Since he’s not really that talented, people make stupid unquantifiable, highly subjective statements: “he’s a 2-way player, he plays really great defense.” Even more outrageous is that this guy has had one of the worst fall-offs, yet he’s never involved in trade rumors or criticized nearly as much as his more impactful, higher-scoring, clutch counterpart Ben Gordon.
Ben Gordon is currently the team’s leading scorer, despite being relegated to the bench, receiving a lowball contract offer, and being ignored on offense by Hinrich. However, when compared to Hinrich, it’s his negative traits that are emphasized: he’s undersized and one-dimensional.
The naturalness of a white leader also applies to another sport I follow. The societal expectation that the best leaders would be white is probably why people at Bruinsnation couldn’t stomach the idea of a Norm Chow (Asian) and Dewayne Walker (black)-led team.
I think their distaste for those two as coaching candidates was not necessarily rooted in their race, but it seems that the fans at that site had a tendency to assume the worst with anyone outside of their fellow white folks.
Norm Chow, Chinaman, apparently had no "personality" to get the job done. They cited his lack of experience, intensely putting out the question why a 61-year old (Asian) guy (in a white and black league) hadn’t had a head coaching job. This ire drawn despite the years of coaching experience, coaching some of the most elite quarterbacks in college football history, and having won a national championship.
There "must" have been something wrong with Norm. There had to be.
Dewayne Walker was characterized by the Bruinsnation writers as a self-promoting Karl Dorrell-holdover. This despite being respected as the incumbent UCLA Bruin defensive coordinator.
Together, Norm Chow and Dewayne Walker as the leading coach candidates, earned the derisive name “Choker.”
I looked for nicknames attributed to other (white) coaching candidates.
Needless to say, no other coaching candidates (most of whom were even LESS qualified than these two) received such names.
There was “Slick Rick” for Rick Neuihesel, but that disappared once it was clear that Walker and Chow were being considered as coaching candidates.
Nothing personal against the new white guy at UCLA, Rick Neuheisel, I admit I like what Rick’s been able to do so far as far as the working-togetherness of his hired guns and recruiting, but the same people who were pulling strongly for him initially balked at the idea of him becoming coach.
The Bruinsnation people thought we had run a lackluster coaching search campaign.
It seems like they only really rallied around Rick Neuheisel NOT because he was a effusively qualified and overly strong candidate (he definitely brings that baggage of cheating with him) but only because he was NOT Norm Chow or Dewayne Walker. He was decidedly not the "timid, stoic, cold" white guy nor was he the "self-promoting" black dude who since he was black obviously was still attached to everything from the fired black coach.
In a twist of irony, when it was announced that Norm Chow and Dewayne Walker would be retained on staff, these same fans calling Chow and Walker, Choker were going apeshit over their hirings.
They were most happy when it happened because in their own words,”it was Rick Neuheisel’s choice” as if white people’s choices are the only good decisions made. It was Rick Neuheisel’s choice, so naturally, it had to be good and trustworthy.
I wonder what it would be like had it been the inverse in any way, with Neuheisel as a coordinator, and Chow and Walker as the guys running things.
When we jump back to professional basketball, with Kirk Hinrich/Ben Gordon, fans like to do much of the same. They will characterize and put the players of color as successful in one-dimensional, specialized roles, but not broad, leadership ones.
Leadership, colored people, never that. One dimensional scoring guard, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, as opposed to 2-dimensional player, quarterback, and head coach.
For years, people have talked about the issue of the leadership roles being assumed by people of color, but it’s probably been a “minor” issue or something just not talked about.
The paucity of black owners, black coaches, black quarterbacks in sports where the number of players who are black are high is not really a social justice issue, but I think it reflects some lessons about the way our society in the US of A works.
In general in this context, it’s become “natural” for white people to be “our” leaders. They need to be the decisionmakers because they’re usually defaulted and perceived as the ones with the experience, the education, etc, especially when running against a person of color.
What bothers me is that we as a society don’t question what exactly makes their decisions better or how they end up with all the experience and education in the first place.
We've relied on white leaders for so long that its weird and unexpected by the society to not have any. Without a white guy as leader, it’s unnatural and odd, or so my dad implies when discussing how weird it is to have a president by the name of Obama.
In the American team sports that I follow both on TV and online be it the NBA, NCAA football, or the NFL, I see black, white, pacific Island, Spanish-speaking players and coaches emerging all the time. It’s nice because I definitely didn’t see much of that growing up, if at all.
Growing up and not seeing my culture, my people represented was the kind of thing that made me question why the hell I had to be Filipino.
Why did I have to be a culture that no one’s heard or talked about? Nowhere to be seen on ESPN. How the heck would I ever become famous or even get on a newspaper (where I wasn’t being described as a murder suspect or an FBI wish list) with a name like I had? Delas Armas anyone? Could they even fit that in the back of a jersey? We used to joke that the last name Delespiritusanto on the back of a jersey would have to come full circle.
However, At least nowadays in sports, I’m seeing little trinklets of multiculturalism. More folks from different races and ethnicities in sports representing.
While that counts as a few steps forward, I ask myself what power do these people of yellow, black, brown-skinned identities hold?
When observing fans of all sports on message boards, forums, comments after articles, I noticed one thing: people really really love the idea of the white guy as the head honcho, top dog, the leader. People will fight hard to have the white guy be the guy on top.
It’s why a white guy like Kirk Hinrich, the Chicago Bulls’ point guard automatically gets compared to players like Steve Nash, the NBA MVP and hall-of-famer John Stockton, despite not having any of their abilities AT ALL.
Those guys were actually known for passing the ball, and making good decisions with the ball.
From my own observation, Hinrich did/does little of the described activities above. Instead, Hinrich dribbles the basketball aimlessly around the court, and panics when time is running out. The man is nowhere near their class and basically has earned his prestige because he shares their pigmentation in a league where the pigmentation is generally much darker.
The guy is not even that good on this team. He’s had his starting spot on the team saved for him ever since he’s been a rookie — he’s the only guy in the Bulls backcourt who hasn’t had to fight for playing time despite his lack of actual impact.
Since he’s not really that talented, people make stupid unquantifiable, highly subjective statements: “he’s a 2-way player, he plays really great defense.” Even more outrageous is that this guy has had one of the worst fall-offs, yet he’s never involved in trade rumors or criticized nearly as much as his more impactful, higher-scoring, clutch counterpart Ben Gordon.
Ben Gordon is currently the team’s leading scorer, despite being relegated to the bench, receiving a lowball contract offer, and being ignored on offense by Hinrich. However, when compared to Hinrich, it’s his negative traits that are emphasized: he’s undersized and one-dimensional.
The naturalness of a white leader also applies to another sport I follow. The societal expectation that the best leaders would be white is probably why people at Bruinsnation couldn’t stomach the idea of a Norm Chow (Asian) and Dewayne Walker (black)-led team.
I think their distaste for those two as coaching candidates was not necessarily rooted in their race, but it seems that the fans at that site had a tendency to assume the worst with anyone outside of their fellow white folks.
Norm Chow, Chinaman, apparently had no "personality" to get the job done. They cited his lack of experience, intensely putting out the question why a 61-year old (Asian) guy (in a white and black league) hadn’t had a head coaching job. This ire drawn despite the years of coaching experience, coaching some of the most elite quarterbacks in college football history, and having won a national championship.
There "must" have been something wrong with Norm. There had to be.
Dewayne Walker was characterized by the Bruinsnation writers as a self-promoting Karl Dorrell-holdover. This despite being respected as the incumbent UCLA Bruin defensive coordinator.
Together, Norm Chow and Dewayne Walker as the leading coach candidates, earned the derisive name “Choker.”
I looked for nicknames attributed to other (white) coaching candidates.
Needless to say, no other coaching candidates (most of whom were even LESS qualified than these two) received such names.
There was “Slick Rick” for Rick Neuihesel, but that disappared once it was clear that Walker and Chow were being considered as coaching candidates.
Nothing personal against the new white guy at UCLA, Rick Neuheisel, I admit I like what Rick’s been able to do so far as far as the working-togetherness of his hired guns and recruiting, but the same people who were pulling strongly for him initially balked at the idea of him becoming coach.
The Bruinsnation people thought we had run a lackluster coaching search campaign.
It seems like they only really rallied around Rick Neuheisel NOT because he was a effusively qualified and overly strong candidate (he definitely brings that baggage of cheating with him) but only because he was NOT Norm Chow or Dewayne Walker. He was decidedly not the "timid, stoic, cold" white guy nor was he the "self-promoting" black dude who since he was black obviously was still attached to everything from the fired black coach.
In a twist of irony, when it was announced that Norm Chow and Dewayne Walker would be retained on staff, these same fans calling Chow and Walker, Choker were going apeshit over their hirings.
They were most happy when it happened because in their own words,”it was Rick Neuheisel’s choice” as if white people’s choices are the only good decisions made. It was Rick Neuheisel’s choice, so naturally, it had to be good and trustworthy.
I wonder what it would be like had it been the inverse in any way, with Neuheisel as a coordinator, and Chow and Walker as the guys running things.
When we jump back to professional basketball, with Kirk Hinrich/Ben Gordon, fans like to do much of the same. They will characterize and put the players of color as successful in one-dimensional, specialized roles, but not broad, leadership ones.
Leadership, colored people, never that. One dimensional scoring guard, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, as opposed to 2-dimensional player, quarterback, and head coach.
For years, people have talked about the issue of the leadership roles being assumed by people of color, but it’s probably been a “minor” issue or something just not talked about.
The paucity of black owners, black coaches, black quarterbacks in sports where the number of players who are black are high is not really a social justice issue, but I think it reflects some lessons about the way our society in the US of A works.
In general in this context, it’s become “natural” for white people to be “our” leaders. They need to be the decisionmakers because they’re usually defaulted and perceived as the ones with the experience, the education, etc, especially when running against a person of color.
What bothers me is that we as a society don’t question what exactly makes their decisions better or how they end up with all the experience and education in the first place.
We've relied on white leaders for so long that its weird and unexpected by the society to not have any. Without a white guy as leader, it’s unnatural and odd, or so my dad implies when discussing how weird it is to have a president by the name of Obama.
Dynamics of the Perception of People of Color Sticking Together
An original version posted on 8/19/2003 as "Friendster: The Asian Thing to Do! :karate chop:" @throwascrewinit.blogspot.com
People of the same race, whether white, Asian, black, Latino generally stick together.
This tending of people within their racial groups whether white people or people of color towards each other is about developing a trust. People generally trust whoever looks like them, grows up around them. That trust and rapport is important in such a society as the urban United States because it helps connect strangers in an otherwise polarized, individualized, impersonalized society.
For example, when buying a car, my dad will automatically go towards the car salesman who happens to be Filipino. Not that he’s racist, but he can automatically and instantly build a connection with the salesman who happens to be Filipino by just speaking the native Tagalog.
The best way to eliminate dependency on race?
Connect with strangers. But that takes time. These stereotypes are something only gradual assimilation into society via more media exposure, and people of color acquiring powerful positions in society and bringing more visibility and confidence for youth of color to align themselves with.
Hopefully continued media exposure, and thus varied opinion and positions of authority can help dissipate the stereotypes that are associated with people of color.
People of the same race, whether white, Asian, black, Latino generally stick together.
This tending of people within their racial groups whether white people or people of color towards each other is about developing a trust. People generally trust whoever looks like them, grows up around them. That trust and rapport is important in such a society as the urban United States because it helps connect strangers in an otherwise polarized, individualized, impersonalized society.
For example, when buying a car, my dad will automatically go towards the car salesman who happens to be Filipino. Not that he’s racist, but he can automatically and instantly build a connection with the salesman who happens to be Filipino by just speaking the native Tagalog.
The best way to eliminate dependency on race?
Connect with strangers. But that takes time. These stereotypes are something only gradual assimilation into society via more media exposure, and people of color acquiring powerful positions in society and bringing more visibility and confidence for youth of color to align themselves with.
Hopefully continued media exposure, and thus varied opinion and positions of authority can help dissipate the stereotypes that are associated with people of color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)