Archive for May, 2009
Remembering Ron Takaki, the man who put Asian Pacific Americans into historical context for the academy
In the future, we will know why May is Asian Pacific American Month. It isn’t just because of the arrival of the first Japanese immigrant (May 7,1843). Or the sweat equity earned by Chinese workers who helped complete the transcontinental railroad (May 10,1869).
Sadly, it is now the month that marks the passing of Ronald Takaki, Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley, who in the last 50 years became the pre-eminent advocate for the inclusion of Asian American history in the American academy.
Takaki died the night of May 26 after a long illness, according to his family. He leaves a wife, Carol Takaki, three children, Dana, Troy, and Todd, and several grandchildren.
It’s hard to imagine what we read before Takaki’s seminal work,”Strangers from a Different Shore”? What did we have to read? The answer. Not much. You might have Asian Americans from a white perspective, but mostly it was considered history on the margins, not seen worthy of serious study. When I was an undergraduate at Harvard in the ’70s, I recall how I hungered for information that would explain to me what happened to the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Filipinos who came to America. Deep in the library stacks I found a few unpublished dissertations from Asian Americans that opened my eyes, but were mostly ignored by others. It wasn’t until Takaki came out with “Strangers” did the sense of the American experience of Asians take place. There was nothing that had the scope, nor success of Takaki’s “Strangers…” I remember when I first saw it, I thought this was it. The most comprehensive telling of our story. I have at least three editions, two hardbound, and one paper back. I keep lending off all my dog-eared copies. Maybe that’s why I never thought to ask Ron to sign a copy for me. His book was a working tool.
So no autograph. But I did get a blurb. I called him up and I was flattered when he said he read my columns. He said he would be happy to blurb my book, a collection called “Amok:Essays from an Asian American Perspective.” For me it was like getting a blessing from on high.
Takaki’s “Strangers…” gave our community a context that brought us together as Americans.
And it gave me an informed sense of the importance to go amok.
By giving our past real meaning, Takaki lifted us up, made us relevant to others, and gave us hope for a better future for our community. That is, if we learn from history.
In the hallowed halls of learning, it was Ron who made people respect our stories.
Hi Amok readers…we were hacked!
Maybe somebody didn’t like my posts on Sonia Sotomayor, and how she symbolizes the first real act of President Obama that wholeheartedly embraces the New America.
Or maybe it was someone who didn’t like my comments on how Ron Takaki made Asian Americans respectable in the American academy.
Or it could have been a random act of cyber-assholicness.
Really, is hacking an opinion site any different from any affront to free-speech like a book burning?
At any rate, I take it as a compliment.
Some of the comments of this week will be reprised and re-posted shortly.
California budget cut question when it’s bone vs. bone: Which is more important–my left leg or my right?
Schools or Mental health? Nah.
But elected officials pay?
Now you’re talking! Voters know what’s important.
Not to dwell too much on the inconsequential. But the American Idol vote and the California vote do point out the same problem.
What do the voters know?
When you leave it up to the people, imperfect democracies becomes even more imperfect. Nice gimmick, letting the people decide. But in the end, are the people, or at least those who turn out to vote, any better than your elected representative?
Seems like California;s problems began when the state veered from a representative democracy to include the initiative process and direct democracy.
Sounds great, but you end up with a hodge podge of policies swayed by the political flavor of the day. Where’s the long range vision? You can’t have any with term limits and hamstrung budgets with their 2/3rds majority requirement, all a direct result of letting the voters take policy matters into their own hands.
If you don’t live in the state and are all too happy to let California fall, consider that it is only one-tenth of the national population, and merely the 8th largest economy in the world.
If California fails, everyone in the country will feel it to some degree.
The answer, unfortunately, is more federal money and more borrowing. Still, all that does not make the state whole. It just means the state can afford to cut less.
But when you’re already down to the bone, the decision comes down to which do I need more, my left leg or my right?
No justice in “American Idol”’s multiple-vote, all-you-can-eat- democracy; But it makes Kris Allen the poster child for the undeserving
It felt like the night George Bush won and Al Gore lost.
This was a night when meritocracy in pop America really lost.
It’s still not as bad as if William Hung had won. It’s not as big a fraud as say calling the Monkees better than the Beatles.
But everyone knows Adam Lambert should have been declared this year’s “American Idol” winner.
Lambert’s talent just dwarfed all the others. Adam made Kris look like Opie at the junior high talent show.
At first, the night had appeared somewhat stacked in Adam’s favor. On this final episode, he got to sing with no less than Kiss and Queen, essentially a grand showcase of the eye-linered contestant with his musical forebears. It almost seemed a pre-annointing of the winner.
So when Kris was announced as the “Idol” it just seemed like a false note.
But what do you expect from a multiple-vote system. It’s been said America doesn’t like to sense its vote doesn’t count. The AI system indulges those voters. Vote doesn’t count? Make it count 10 times. Vote all you want. It’s an all-you-can-eat democracy. But it does make the vote about the voters and not about the talent on stage.
Doesn’t matter. Before long, Kris will be joining previous winner Taylor Hicks on the county fair circuit.
Meanwhile, Adam will emerge quite simply as the most versatile and gifted performer birthed by the show ever.
Talent always wins out in the end.
On talent, it’s Adam Lambert; But will America vote for a Gay “Idol”?
Hands down, Adam Lambert has been the most talented performer to emerge from this season’s cast. The guy is s Freddie Mercury and Ethel Merman’s love child. (Imagine that one for a minute).
But I’m just not sure if America is ready to vote for such an openly gay idol.
It shouldn’t matter, of course. Ask Sir Elton John how its hurt his career.
But Adam seems to have been hit by a sudden rise in the appreciation of Arkansas troubadour Kris Allen. To be fair, Kris is a gifted singer in his own right, just not the best.
Throughout the entire season, no one has quite dominated like Adam. He’s has been a mountain of talent next to some nice little musical molehills. He’s been so far ahead of the pack, Adam’s been the show’s Rachel Alexandra, by golly.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s toned it down a bit for prime-time.
But leaving it up to a fan’s vote makes it questionable whether he will be fairly rewarded for his domination this year.
Adam deserves to win tonight.
If Adam doesn’t and Kris wins by a slight margin, it won’t be because Kris was more talented. Chalk it up to good old fashioned American homophobia. From gay marriage to gays in the miltary, we know it’s there. Why should “American Idol” be immune?
Maybe people would vote for an American Idol Tax? Who cares? Why politicians are thrilled with yesterday’s vote; Also–Kudos to Chu, Pleitez
Arnold Schwarzenegger should have had a singing contest for all the different tax and budget proposals. Maybe more people would have shown up at the polls in California.
The only measure to muster a victory was the most obvious one, the limit on pay raises. That was like putting up a “kick me” sign on the back of public officials. Yes, for sure. All others, no. Perhaps to the detriment of our state government. Services were already going to be cut. Now they’ll be cut more. When there’s little faith in government to begin with, it’s hard to sell the voters on a sense of value.
Still, if politicians know that sending something to the voters is almost always a sure loser, then something else is at work here too.
The governor and the legislators shouldn’t have taken it this far. Putting things up for a vote is just a massive cop- out that signifies a real inability to govern. The politicians shouldn’t be able to use the electorate to dodge their own lack of responsibility. But now the politicians can say,”We gave the voters a choice and this is what they wanted.” But do we truly want underfunded public services, inefficient state government, bad schools? I don’t want that.
Tuesday’s vote just gave our elected officials a convenient alibi.
They can now say, “Not our fault; blame the voters, (or lack thereof).”
The tough decisions have been made –not by our elite elected representatives–but by a handful of voters who showed up on Tuesday.
CHU’S VICTORY, PLEITEZ IMPRESSES
Congrats to State Board of Equalization Vice Chairwoman Judy Chu, victorious in the race for the open 32nd Congressional District seat. She won the most votes to beat fellow Democrat state Sen. Gil Cedillo, but did not gain a majority to avoid a runoff. Chu survived almost every tactic Cedillo could throw at her.
The real surprise, however, was not the Asian defeating the Latino. The real story is the strong showing of Emanuel Pleitez, a Stanford grad from the Eastside of LA, who showed he learned a thing or two from his time on the Obama campaign. The former Goldman Sachs executive used the internet and his personal contacts to run a strong third against the two veteran Democrat frontrunners.
Clearly, Pleitez is the future. Not Villaraisgosa. Not Cedillo. Look for Pleitez to resurface again soon somehwere–victoriously.
Catholics, abortion, Notre Dame and Obama’s common ground
I’m one of those Catholics who believe in individual choice. I don’t condone abortion, but I don’t think it’s my business, or the government’s for that matter, to restrict you or anyone else from getting one. If that’s what you want. I’ll pray for you . But I won’t deny you.
This is all about dealing with the contradictions. For example, how does Bush a get off calling himself pro-life after making a living off death row all his political career?
So is my contradiction better than his? I think it is. And somewhere around there is where I think we’ll find common ground. It won’t be on the edges where Alan Keyes and his radical counterparts are.
It will definitely be someplace quieter. And then we can make a breakthrough in this old debate.
Who made Alan Keyes pope? President Obama puts abortion debate in its place at Notre Dame
President Obama is always best when on the ropes. And when the pro-life right wanted to use Obama’s Notre Dame commencement yesterday to highlight the president’s pro-choice position, Obama responded the way he always does.
He delivers a speech that goes beyond the protest and attempts to bring us to common ground.
That’s what Obama, our ” man of the scrupulous middle,” does best. He showed his finesse again by delivering what I think is as good a speech as there can be on abortion today. It doesn’t solve the problem, but tries to frame the issue so at least we can talk about it.
More than a “we agree to disagree,” it was a speech that boldly suggests we need to work toward finding a solution: Common ground. How do we get there? As Obama said, with “Open hearts.Open minds. Fair-minded words.”
That’s why he’s president.
Go beyond the soundbites you may have heard.Here’s the excerpt from Obama’s speech that impressed me: Read the rest of this entry »
Why are we having a torturous debate on torture?
Does it really matter what Speaker Pelosi knew and when she knew what she knew on torture?
I would be surprised if the CIA told Pelosi the absolute truth on waterboarding back in 2002. And even if it did reveal everything to Pelosi back then, it seems absurd to equate whatever that would be (hypocrisy? Imagine that?) with the true moral crime of the U.S. employing torture as standard operating procedure.
Bush and the Republicans were in control. They were the ones in charge of Waterboard Central. They can pull in the Dems somewhat into the current blame game, but only as fringe players. It’s true the Democrats in general didn’t speak up as loudly and clearly as they could have. But that’s politics. As is all the finger pointing now.
The problem is the U.S. has never spoken out as forcefully as it should have against torture. Tough to do when the country is the perpetrator on two major war fronts. Hard to really say no on torture without looking soft on terrorism. It explains all the pussy-footing around the ethics of torture.
As a Bay Area guy, I’m apt to believe Pelosi. But all her claims about CIA lying only show how mealy mouth everyone in America , from politicians to the general public,have been.
While suspects were tortured for real, prime-time TV shows like “24″ glorified torture as entertainment. If you cheered Jack Bauer, did you cheer George Bush?
Or did you change the channel?
Im afraid the voices of outrage from on high and low, were all for the most part, shamefully muted.
The country was whipped into a xenophobic mindset where giving the bad guys an extra dose of torture– for good measure—may have at the time seemed reasonable.
In retrospect, what were our leaders thinking?
-
-
You are currently browsing the archives for May, 2009
Subscribe
