I Am Legend

After watching I Am Legend this Saturday, the storyline of the film reminded me a lot about our class theme of home.

Warning: Spoiler ahead

In the film, Will Smith and his dog, Sam, are the only survivors left in New York and possibly America after the spread of a deadly virus. The virus originated from a cure to cancer and affects humans by turning them into monstrous-aggressive creatures who in turn kill/infect other living things. When another survivor tells Smith about the possibility of a safe colony, Smith refuses to go because he wants to find a cure and fix America, his home. His home is so important to him that he chooses to face flesh-eating monsters and loneliness than to find sanctuary.

End of spoiler

The character played by Will Smith shows that one can sacrifice his/her life for the well being and continuation of their home. But what is home? For Smith, it was America? Does home only encompass someone's country? Or does it include other things of smaller scope?

I feel that the novels we read progressed from a narrow definition of home to home being defined as country and much more. Since our class is almost ending, I think that it is appropriate for me recap how the novels are linked to the theme of home and share my new ideas about home.

In The Namesake, Gogol distances himself from his parents' home because it is a constant reminder of his Indian culture and his name. Taken altogether, by distancing himself from home, he shuns his identity and attempts to create a new one he feels comfortable in. However, as he gains awareness of his Indian American identity, he finds it necessary to return home. Gogol's case shows that one's identity and home are closely knit together. A home allows one to find their true identity and to fully act out his/her identity.

Similarly, the narrator of The Gangster We Are All Looking For finds it necessary to return home, but for different reasons. As a child, the narrator was frequently moving; first from her native country, Vietnam, then from house to house in San Diego.

. In essence, the narrator's sense of home is something instrumental that helps in resolving problems and improving relationships. In either case, both protagonist reveal the necessity of returning home and the difficulty of leaving home forever.

Not only is it difficult for one to leave their home, but it's even more difficult for one to change their sense of home. Both My Country Versus Me and Obasan, novels based on historical events, show the static character of one's sense of home. Despite the accusations of being a Chinese spy, Wen Ho Lee still feels that America is his country and home. Even worse, is the treatment of Japanese Canadians during World War II. Yet, people like Obasan, Naomi, and Aunt Emily still consider Canada to be their home and country. Both of these examples show that one's tie to their home does not change easily. And both of these novels call for minorities to stand up and to take action, whether one form or another, in order to prevent someone or some force from changing their sense of home.

Oh Saigon Review

Oh, Saigon is a 2007 personal documentary by Vietnamese American director Doan Hoang about her family that is separated during the Fall of Saigon and her attempt to reunite her family after years of separation. Oh, Saigon was executive produced by Academy Award and Emmy winner, John Battsek. Oh, Saigon won prestigious film grants from the Sundance Institute Documentary Fund, ITVS, the Center for Asian American Media, and the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.

Airlifted out of Vietnam on April 30, 1975, Doan Hoang’s family was on the last civilian helicopter out of the country at the end of the war. Twenty-five years later, she sets out to uncover their story. The film follows her family as they return to Vietnam after decades of exile, where her father, a former South Vietnamese major, meets his brothers again to confront their political differences: one was a Communist, the other a pacifist. Meanwhile, Hoang tries to reconcile her own difficult past with her half sister, who was mistakenly separated from the family during the escape.

I went to a screening of Oh, Saigon at Berkeley the other day, and it's a layered, gorgeous film about the Vietnam War that stayed on my mind for a while. Afterwards, I found myself discussing it with my roomate and friends who I saw the film with for days. Things would occur to us later on about situations or characters in the film. The documentary shows a fairly normal family who are put in a really horrible situation during the end of the Vietnam War. The film displayed a sort of multi-tiered perspective of a family in a war where each of its members had a different set of choices and experiences that set them apart from each other.

Many years later, you see how members of this family act out or feel about these defining events in their lives, and see how they handle themselves and each other now. It made me think of what the people in war zones all around the world are going through, and how long their experiences will affect them and their children. This movie is not just about war, but there are sibling, mother/daughter, political/idealism, immigrant issues. It shows how people on the winning and losing sides feel. There's guilt, there's love. There are riveting, shocking and sad moments. There's humor and hope. It covered a lot of a film of its length, and was well-paced, well-edited, and really took me in. It's kind of unbelievable that what real people live through. Anyway, a great film, and I would highly recommend it.

I moved here with my family when I was 2 years old and so I don't recall anything from my true homeland. As much as I love America and am grateful for all of her opportunities, I have always felt like I had a missing link to my past. I think that Doan's film had everything that a movie could ask for - comedy, emotion, a beautiful in-depth story-line, and dramatic historical events.
This film was moving in that it addressed the turmoil of an internal war. A war after the war, so to speak. I was too young to remember, but I do know that wars can leave many different types of scars. I think the ones inflicted on this family are especially deep but I believe that time does heal some of the wounds. This film moved me and it brought out emotions that I also seek answer to within my family. My family really never discusses what happened as we made our way here.

Reflections on Obasan

After reading Obasan, I am glad that Chia-Chi and Christine chose this to be the last novel. I think this is the ideal novel to end the class because it ties in many themes of previous novels and class lectures. I was completely new to the historical context of Obasan. Before reading the novel, I heard of Japanese internment in the US, but I did not know that Japanese internment occurred in Canada. This last topic provoked a question. While reading Obasan, I asked myself, why are we reading about Japanese Canadians in an Asian American class?

I guess the answer to this question relates to the Wen Ho Lee case. Asians in non-Asian countries are seen as perpetual foreigners. Even Asians who are born in this country or in any other non-Asian country are continuously seen as outsiders. They are seen as outsiders because natives believe that Asians are more loyal to their ethnic country. Perhaps the most obvious explanation for the perception of Asians as perpetual foreigners, is the difference in appearance. Either way, if Asians are seen as perpetual foreigners, then they will never be accepted into the societies that they live in. Another issue addressed in Obasan, is racial profiling. All Japanese Canadians were seen as spies simply because they were Japanese. I guess we are reading about Asian Canadians in an Asian American class to be aware that mistreatment of Asians can occur anywhere.

A dialogue between Aunt Emily and Naomi was strikingly interesting to me. Aunt Emily points out that Germans can kill and relocate people because Germany is an authoritarian state and asks, how could this be happening in Canada-- a democracy? This excerpt was particularly alarming because I observed that internment in Canada was not that different from the ghettoes of Germany, except for the mass genocide. This historical example shows that this could happen to any of us. Thus, this is a call for a cohesive Asian identity and a call to action. Aunt Emily's character illustrates the importance of political involvement in order to have a say on government policies.

Perhaps the biggest obstacles for a cohesive Asian identity are inter-Asian animosities and passivity. One example of inter-Asian animosities is between Chinese and Japanese. Some Chinese children are instilled with the idea that the Japanese are bad people. These children are told about how Japanese soldiers ransacked villages, killed men, and raped women. It is no wonder that it is difficult for some Chinese to care about the welfare of Japanese or let alone be included under a same identity: Asian. Another prominent obstacle for an Asian identity is passivity. As children, most of us are taught to stay out of people's business because this will only bring trouble upon ourselves. Therefore, it's not hard to believe the inaction of some minority groups during the Japanese internment. But by allowing this to occur, we are indirectly approving the actions of the wrongdoers and allowing the possibility for this to happen again.

Hyphen

Place Hyphen magazine next to some of the more established Asian publications in the United States and several things immediately distinguish it: First, it’s in English, which identifies its audience as primarily American-born. Second, it sports an artsy, unconventional design that further defines its audience as young and hip. Finally, the content—which spans pop culture, politics and social commentary—is doing more than simply selling an image and its advertisements like so many identity-driven niche publications today.
The staff of Hyphen Magazine

The target is younger Asians who speak English as a first language and are as familiar with punk rock as they are with bok choy. Yes, we’re Asian. But we’re American too, and these are the issues that we think about. Hyphen was released in early 2003 partly due to the folding of A. magazine—a glossy lifestyle monthly that was aimed primarily at an educated 35-and-under Asian American readership, preferably with disposable income to boot. With its image-driven emphasis on celebrity, fashion and trends, A. magazine lasted for an impressive 13 years before shutting down in 2002.

Hyphen emphasizes news oriented, more critical, more focused on social justice issues. This is a publication out there that reflected progressive Asian Americans. Hyphen’s all-volunteer staff has the persistence to raise money on its own to spread its Asian American ideas. They run as a non-profit venture rather and most of the staff also have experience in “progressive” areas like community organizing, teaching, and underground arts. People in the magazine seem to be doing it because they really want to do the magazine. On a societal level, they seek to combat complacency and redefine what it means to be Asian American. On an industry level, they seek to be a thought-leader in the mainstream media. On another level, they seek to produce revelatory journalism that profiles, explores, and illuminates the lives, culture and politics of Asian America.”

Some might find the tone of the magazine harsh and confrontational compared to other Asian media in the United States. It’s important to examine things that aren’t always going to be pretty. There’s a tendency among older Asian Americans to only expose what’s nice. Ironically, the most popular pieces in are on looking back on political and cultural awakening.

In addition to probing political and social justice questions, Hyphen places heavy emphasis on its pan-Asian scope. It is part of a small, but growing number of media that transcend the divisions of separate Asian ethnicities. Multiculturalism is very important. It is important to present a united Asian front that translates into more power politically.

Rather than focus strictly on issues of politics or ethnic identity, however, they try to appeal to the broader tastes of popular culture. The goal behind all this is that we want to be a catalyst for change in the community. There are a large number of young people out there who are apathetic about things and the world Asian Americans live in. While this could be said about mainstream Americans, it’s particularly annoying to me when that person is Asian, considering all our community has been through historically.

To be passive, or not to be...

So, since we're on the topic of Wen Ho Lee...

I have been thinking a lot about the role of the Asian American community in politics. Asian Americans have only recently received the right to vote in comparison to our nation's history, and it is both appalling that it took so long for us to get here, and at the same time it is amazing that we have such a power to participate. I remember when I first became interested in politics--the California recall election, the results of which I mourn everyday (funny fact, Schwarzenegger used to work out in a gym that is super close to my house). I rooted for Peter Camejo, a Green party candidate who had no chance. With my obsession with Peter, I became enthralled in the world of politics, and the idea of making a change.

I even made it a point to convince my entire family to vote. I was successful with my older sister and my dad. My mom, on the other hand, was a lost cause. She refuses to vote. I still to this day make a point to say "you know, mom, if you don't vote, you can't really complain about who's in charge." You know, just to get her thinking about being more active. I suppose her reasons for not voting have to do with her apathy towards the political system, or maybe just the idea that one vote will not make a difference. Or maybe she doesn't trust herself to be a part of the decision making process. Who knows. Point being, my mom is what we would call an example of the passive Asian American stereotype.

Wen Ho Lee stayed out of politics because he didn't want to cause any trouble. He just wanted to live out the American dream in peace and quiet and the company of his family. I don't think the reason for my mom's apathy is the same as Wen Ho Lee's. I don't think all Asians who don't vote have the same reason for not participating in politics (if in fact they are in the majority that do not participate), but somehow collectively we have drawn attention towards this stereotype that we are all passive.

Wen Ho Lee made a point at the end of his book to say that he hopes his children's generation is more politically active than himself, or his own generation. I initially criticized this statement, but upon second thought I am beginning to think: Maybe Wen Ho Lee's generation could not have afforded to be in the spotlight of political activity to get where they did. Maybe it is the responsible of the next generation to make a comeback in the political world and to change the stereotype that has become us. My generation of Asian Americans lives in a world where we are sitting on the shoulders of those before us, like Newton once said, and we have the freedom to speak out if necessary, without worrying about our simple states of well-being and economic security. I feel pretty lucky to be able to get a college education, and that my parents can pay for it. I also feel like I have been given a chance to make a difference--so maybe I will.

If anyone knows, CARLOS KNOWS!

“Middle Eastern people you guys are upset, that’s cool. Complain to white people though. They are going to sympathize with you. Yeah, not us Blacks and beaners though, leave us alone. We are the last people you want to bring that too.
‘But you don’t understand they are looking at me funny because of the way I look. Racial profiling!’ said in a “Middle Eastern” accent.
Welcome to the club Mohammed!”

This exert was taken from a stand up comedy special by the controversial Carlos Mencia, a Honduran-American comedian. In the special, Mencia takes on the topic of race and racism in a post 9/11 world. In his in-your-face, apologize for nothing manner, Mencia strikes an interesting point.

“And you see everyone got picked on, everyone had a good time. But no. This is what people are afraid of; us enjoying making fun of each other… we go too far with this stuff. We go too far with political correctness… but apparently it’s not ok to have a sense of humor. No, that’s not cool. Because instead of uniting America we want to separate each other because Mexicans eat tacos and white people eat beef stroganoff and black people each fried chicken.
‘That makes us different,’ said in a satirical tone of voice.
‘No that makes you hungry… You see America is a giant game of tag. first it was the blacks. Then the Mexicans. And now its Middle Eastern people. Eventually, every race is going to be picked on for the stupid shit a handful of people did. But that’s just the way it is.”

This brings me to My Country Versus Me. Mencia would easily attribute what happened to Wen Ho Lee as Asian Americans being used as a scapegoat by mass media and the country as a whole. Top secret information was leaked to Chinese officials, who would do such a thing? A Chinese man! In the book, Lee goes on to describe how white counterparts, who visited China just as frequently and could have just as likely leaked the information, were free of suspicion. He also goes on to describe how the media proceeded to use tactics so as to convince the public of Lee’s involvement.
And as we have learned in class this year, this is the first time Asians have been used as scapegoats. First there was the Chinese in California during the gold rush which leads to the Chinese exclusion act. Later it is the Japanese and the Gentlemen’s Agreement at the turn of the twentieth century. Then it is Filipinos like Carlos Bulosan. Then back to Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Then Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. Koreans during the Korean War. The list goes on and on. And then who’s going to be next? Will it be North Korea and Kim Jong-il? Or how about China and its poor human rights history in dealing with Tibet and Burma, as is manifested in the protests against the 2008 Beijing Olympics?
Mencia is convinced that this game of tag is a necessary part of society because we are human, and we naturally look for someone to blame when things don’t go our way. But Mencia argues that instead of resulting to violence as in the case of Vincent Chin or Wen Ho Lee, we resolve our issues with comedy. As much as I would want something like this to work, I don’t think that the rest of America would be satisfied with making an Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jong-il joke.

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling seems to be very common within our nation. Racial profiling has become second nature to most people because we readily make inferences about people and it is really hard to prevent that fact. It is almost a subconscious thought process that pretty much everyone has. It's kind of hard to protest against something that even you cannot help but do yourself. When airport security guards stop Middle-eastern looking people for "random" security checks, we think it is unjust. And it is. But most of us cannot deny that we get slightly suspicious when we see a Middle-easterner, especially at the airport. When we all have been traumatized by 9/11, and force-fed all the news about Al-Qaeda, we unfortunately have imprinted into our minds the image of people in the Middle East blowing themselves up. This is why racial profiling is so hard to fight against, and still exists strongly today.

Racial profiling--it's wrong, no matter how useful and helpful it is for the government or the nation. But is it even advantageous at all? I mean, if I were a foreign government sending in spies, I would send in the least suspicious individuals, i.e. those who don't look like people from my country. I would look for individuals who are in need of money, and are not necessarily loyal to the country on. There is no question that bribery is all powerful. No matter how terrible the act, someone will always do it for the correct amount of money. So almost certainly the American government's unwritten racial profiling policy is just wasted time and energy.
Yes, Clinton's administration felt they had to prove the GOP wrong, and perhaps show the American public that something was being done about China, but they had no cause to use racial profiling as their sole policy.

In the case of Wen Ho Lee, it was racial profiling to the extreme. I cannot believe how the government could single out one Chinese person with no real evidence, and take over his entire life, seemingly creating evidence as it went. How could so many ridiculously unjust things go on in the very government that is created for the people, by the people? No matter how many checks and balances there are, the corruption of power will always exist.

Now it is entirely possible that Lee was exaggerating a bit. It is understandable how having your life ruined would spur you to get sweet revenge. But I believe Lee is telling the complete truth. While it is crazy what the government did, I think a major reason why they so relentlessly attacked Lee again and again was the fact that he couldn't defend himself. With English as his second language, he couldn't say much more than "uh, um... I'm innocent", as evidenced in the section where he wrote down the exact conversation he had with the FBI. After reading that section, I could see that the language barrier was a significant reason why the FBI couldn't see the evidence for his innocence. I felt that if he had the ability to speak as he did in the book (with the help of Helen Zia), he would have been found innocent much earlier.