Mission Accomplished!

Five years later, and our mission remains "accomplished" as it was five years earlier.

(What Did I Do To Be So) Black and Blue?

Reading Invisible Man always helps me to keep it real: every time I think I've got it all figured out, when I think I have constructed some kind of a plausible justification, the book simply knocks all that bullshit down and slaps me around a couple of time, mockingly, but also affectionately, to tell me that I don't know shit.

Which is good, because one can never get complacent and think that it's all figured out.

Take, for instance, the situation of my imminent graduation from college and entrance into the real world, wherever and whatever that is. And it so happens that in my fifth time of reading it, I happen to come across the part of the story when the narrator, the titular invisible man, leaves college and is going to Harlem on a bus. He meets this veteran, who may or may not be crazy, and receives some difficult advice.

In so many words, the veteran basically puts a scapel to the narrator's hopes and dreams, exposing the deep fear and insecurities that underlie them. For example, he talks about the "freedom" that the narrator will experience in the North that the South simply cannot afford him. And with penetrating psychological insight, the veteran breaks down such "freedoms" by saying

Most of the time he'll be working, and so much of his freedom will have to be symbolic. And what will be his or any man's most easily accessible symbol of freedom? Why, a woman, of course. In twenty minutes he can inflate that symbol with all the freedom which he'll be too busy working to enjoy the rest of the time.

And there, in that one passage, the veteran not only destroyed the narrator's notion of freedom, but also my notion of freedom. You see, why the fuck would I pick myself up and move my sorry ass across the continent? Because, in my mind, DC represents freedom: freedom to start somewhere new in a place--a stranger in a strange land you might say; a freedom from what I perceive to be a future of conformity, by doing something that Asian Americans usually don't do--work in politics. But are those also not so many lies and insecurities? Are those also nothing but mere empty, grandstanding, self-righteous rhetoric wrapped in so many hollow notions of individualism? In the end, whatever "freedom" I may have envisioned for myself in the future will probably be little more than symbolic.

The vet then goes on to tell the invisible man about "the game," with a tone of mixed cynicism and wisdom, a tone that at once says both that the game is corrupt and also that it must be played, and played well.

But for God's sake, learn to look beneath the surface. Come out of the fog, young man. And remember you don't have to be a complete fool in order to succeed. Play the game, but don't believe in it--that much you owe yourself. Even if it lands you in a strait jacket or a padded cell. Play the game, but play it in your own way--part of the time at least. Play the game, but raise the ante, my boy. Learn how it operates, learn how you operate. You might even beat the game.

And that, friends, is how I feel about the future. In the end, one necessarily compromises one's principles and learn to "play the game" and play it well. But therein lies the difficulty: how to both play and excel at the game without believing it, without becoming a part of the game. The vet seems to believe that there is a right balance that one can strike, such that one can both succeed and not be assimilated, but personally, I somehow doubt that. Or have I compromised fatally by accepting compromises of any kind, to any extent?

Finally, the vet talks about the people out there, the "they," and this passage strikes me as very Heideggerian:

They? Why, the same they we always mean, the white folks, authority, the gods, fate, circumstances--the force that pulls your strings until you refuse to be pulled anymore. The big man who's never there, where you think he is.

That, I suppose, is also my fear as well. Not so much directed towards white people, but toward things out there beyond my control.

But in the end, this too, this very blog post, is just all bullshit talk. Yet even then, the vet has an appropriate answer:

Sure, I'm a compulsive talker of a kind, but I'm really more clown than fool.

That's probably what I am--a compulsive talker who's full of shit most of the time.

Pops and Duke under One Roof

Louis Armstrong + Duke Ellington = THE WIN

Seriously, how can you NOT like two of the immortals playing together? Norman Granz was a genius for bringing these two together to record. The Great Summit is the album that resulted from the only known recording session that these two ever did. I can't think of one good reason why anyone who call himself a jazz fan would not want this album.

Satchmo and the Duke are both on their game in this song, but I want to point out the clarinet player, Barney Bigard, also does a tremendous job. In fact, the whole band is very much loose and relaxed here; it really does feel like a cool after-hours jam session. It also helps that the the album was recorded very well--if your stereo is up to par, it really does seem like the band is playing in the living room.

In other news, does anyone else besides me think that a tax-holiday on gasoline during the summer is the stupidest fucking policy idea ever? I mean, Jesus, if we are trying to reduce our dependence on crude oil, then why the fuck are we driving up the demand for it?

Sure, it's a crowd-pleaser, but on a policy-level, it makes no sense, at all. All we are doing is drive up demand for gas, which means increasing the already high gas prices, and transferring the increased wealth from increasing gas prices to the very countries whom we are trying to wean ourselves from.

Does that make sense to anyone at all?

The Asian Cultural Legacy in America, or: How There is None

A thought experiment, if you will: suppose in a hundred year's time, Asian people have all disappeared from America, what would they leave so that they might not be forgotten?

The answer, at least on the many times when I have thought about it, is none.

Asian people have left no cultural legacy in America: we have written no great novels, composed no great music, thought no great philosophy, and sure as hell did not reshape politics.

In other words, Asian people have made not a single dent on the cultural and intellectual landscape of America.

This is not to say that Asian people have not written, composed, or philosophized? Because surely we have, and history backs this up.

But what troubles me is this: Asians have not written, composed, or philosophized in America. At least, not in a significant enough manner to have left a lasting legacy.

It is high time for Asian Americans to get out of the marginalized dungeon that is the Asian Studies departments across campuses, and into the broad daylight that is the American cultural and intellectual pantheon.

Where is our Faulkner? Where is our Gershwin? Duke Ellington? Bob Dylan? Where is our Coppolas and Scorceses? Where is our John Rawls and William James? On every cultural front, Asian Americans have made no significant stride.

In other words, what the fuck have we contributed to the American ideas and culture? Our two most prominent academics, Fukuyama and John Yoo are known as a supporter of an unjust war and an enabler of torture.

No matter how much money we make, or how successful we become, no matter how well-off our children are, in the end, we will NEVER belong to this country, this society, if we never even leave our mark on its culture and its ideas. Because 100 years from now, no one is going to remember how much money we have made, or how high we've climbed the corporate ladder, or how big our houses are.

And I sincerely believe that it is not a matter of talent or skills, because Asian people are skilled. I think the matter is one of effort: I just don't see it. Look, we can be the most successful engineers, doctors, and lawyers in the fucking world, and it would not matter one fucking bit, because until we have made ourselves felt in the world of ideas and culture, we might as well not exist. Sure, our non-existence will be prosperous, but it is non-existence nonetheless.

Failing to write The Great American Novel is not what bothers me, because the road to greatness is paved with innumerable failures. What bothers me is the lack of effort, and perhaps the lack of awareness: the awareness that it is not merely enough to do well financially in order to truly belong to a community, any community.

In order to TRULY belong to a community, its members must participate in the community's cultural and intellectual formation and undertaking. Because that, at the end of the day, is what determines what a community is, how it thinks of itself. In other words, if Asian Americans don't even want to participate in the creation of an American identity, then we will never be Americans.

This is not to say that we have to sell out: after all, Ralph Ellison wrote about the black experience, but we don't think of Invisible Man as a "black" novel, but rather one of the finest examples of the AMERICAN novel. Similarly, jazz is not merely "black" music, but is instead perhaps America's finest contribution to the musical culture around the world.

True, Asians have thousands of years worth of culture and ideas that they can proudly call their own, but we are in America, and in America, our cultural contribution is, if not entirely absent, then at least sorely lacking.

And lest I confuse you: I'm not saying that cultural and intellectual undertakings take priority above all else. No, if survival is not guaranteed, then those undertakings are of not importance whatsoever. But that is my point: we Asians have done very well for ourselves in America, so survival can and should no longer be our most pressing priority. That kind of mentality no longer fits our economic reality.

In other words, Asians have done well enough for themselves that they now have the luxury of undertaking cultural and intellectual endeavors.

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe all it takes is time.

Chinese Nationalism

I seem to remember, some posts back, that I would stop talking about China, Tibet, and the whole Olympic Torch incident.

Well, I lied.

John Quiggin posts over at Crooked Timber about what effects, if any, the protests will have on China-Tibet relations. I think it is a pretty good post, and articulates, in a far better way than I have done, why I feel the entire incident is overblown.

Quigging concludes that:

In fact, however, the protests have focused* entirely on the national claims of Tibet (as represented by the government in exile of the Dalai Lama) and have produced an unsurprising nationalist reaction in China (effectively in support of the existing government). The result, almost certainly, is that the position of supporters of democracy will be worse than ever, with any criticism of the Chinese authorities being viewed as support for external attacks on China’s territorial integrity.

He's right on the money about the nationalist reaction the whole thing has produced in China, and talking to my grandparents, who pay much more attention to Chinese media in America than I do, the nationalist sentiment seems to be in full effect.

Furthermore, Quiggin goes on to say that:

As far as Tibet is concerned, all this is likely to prove counterproductive. A democratic Chinese government would almost certainly come around to the viewpoint that territorial control over Tibet is an expensive indulgence, in terms of both economic cost and international standing, while a democratic and independent Tibet would have little choice but to pursue close economic and political ties with China. But as long as China remains in its current political stasis, no movement on this issue is likely.

Again, I have to agree with him: if the real desired goal is Tibetan independence, then the protests have done little, if anything at all, to move any closer toward the goal. Instead, the nationalist reaction provoked by the protests will only reinforce the credibility and the legitimacy of the Communist regime in China. I mean, even if the Dalai Lama is advocating non-separation and is willing to negotiate with the Communist government, certainly the protests have made the two sides more polarized and their positions more entrenched.

And to go beyond Tibet, I have to wonder: when the fuck is the Communist government ever going to stop fanning the nationalist flame? When the hell are they going to realize that China is now a superpower and no longer need such chest-puffing exercises to show its power? This is the same kind of obsessive inferiority-complex that makes China-Taiwan relations impossible to move forward.

The Chinese government should realize by now that even if Tibet and Taiwan wanted separation, they have no real choice but to remain extremely close to the central government because of China's status as a hegemonic power in the region? Let's say that Tibet is indeed free, hypothetically, there is very little possibility that it will not maintain close relations with the Chinese government.

But may the Chinese government does have some cause for concern, since the Han Chinese makes up only a small minority in China's territory. It is my hope that in the future, China will evolve into some kind of federal system, in which constituent units are divided along ethnic lines with certain degrees of self-rule, but still maintain very close relationship to Beijing.

Then again, that may be, and probably is, just a pipe dream.

The Politics of Whisky

Finish the shot HRC! Don't waste whisky, which I believe counts as a mortal sin in Catholicism, the last time I checked.

But of course, this really shows that she's "one of us regular folks," because as we all know, there is nothing more Joe Sixpack-ish than Crown Royal, a whisky that comes in a fucking plush blue velvet bag.

Let's just forget about this blatant pandering for a moment, let us forget the cynical "populist" turn being performed here: what does it matter at all, at the end of the day, whether the President is "one of us" or not?

Besides, let it be said that real men only drink Jameson!

One Debate to Ruin Them All

I have to say, out of the 21 Democratic debates held so far, I've watched at least 15 of them, but man, last night's debate was the worst of them all.

Question: what is the purpose of spending half of the debate asking questions about who-said-what, who-is-friends-with-whom, and other inane bullshit?

Who was really served when a 60s radical (Bill Ayers, if you are keeping score at home) was brought up? And who was really served when Obama brought up an obscure comment HRC made back in '92?

And the media accuses Obama of being out of touch with the common people: sure, because there is nothing more relevant to the people of Pennsylvania than who-was-on-the-board-with-whom, and who-pardoned-whom, and who-baked-cookies.

We are all just dying to find out, for the six hundred thirty seventh time, what kind of sniper fire that HRC was under.

I propose no more debates, because let us be honest here: how much more can we take? And how much do we REALLY care about Guam?