Started in 1996 by the Pacific News Service (PNS), New California MediaI… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (19)Page 1 of 1 pagesI am not sure what to make of this article. Race relations are a sticky thing for me given that I am white and have not had the color of my skin be my defining characterisitc. It seems that “colored” people (we are all colored) are more trapped by the shade of their skin. What a pity. I can sense a growing hatred between African americans and chicanos. I do not know what causes it but I am worried. Perhaps I can be enlightened. Despite all the progress we have made in understanding race, it is still such a touchy subject for politicians and taboo for many pundits in the media.
I did like that drawing of the Hawaiian chick though.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 19, 2005 at 10:18 PM That drawing is pointless and offensive. Was a drawing of a buff brownskinned native Hawaiian man with a bulging loincloth rejected in favor of this stereotypical male-approved caricature of Hawaiian, nay, all women?
You remind me of an Iranian woman who recently said, “The veil of America is porn.”
Equating the future of America with super big-tittied native girls wearing “do me” faces and holding cocktails tells this woman the role you envision for women in the future is the same reductively hypersexualized, racialized, and infantilized role women are forced to live now. Will we ever be your respected equals instead of your porny eye candy?
How disappointingly regressive liberals are to women’s rights these days.
Posted by musing mama on Aug 19, 2005 at 11:05 PM Richard Rodriguez must have lived a fairly cloistered life if he thinks that Hawaii or Southern California (think East L.A.) are ethinc melting pots where exclusivity doesn’t exist.
For that matter, the tropical islands’ native populations are not all that enamored with seeing an influx of any other races, white or otherwise. Anyone from the mainland U.S. who has spent enough time in Hawaii often gets the message, “O.K. haole, come here, spend your money and then go home.” There are less kind words than “go home” but I won’t use them here.
There is a lot of clanishness among the Chinese, Japanese and the recent influx of Samoans, many of whom have emigragted to Hawaii to take jobs at far lower wages than other ethnic groups. The Samoans are considered by many of the earlier arivees to Hawaii to be the unwashed, much like the caste system in India.
There is plenty of protectiveness, elitism, and anger among native islanders as I’m sure others have noted who have spent any amount of time in places like the Mariannas and Marshall islands. There, the native people work in slave labor conditions in sweatshops that pay below minimum wages so that corporate CEO pigs can put “Made in the USA” labels on their clothing lines.
But, go to Japan, Okinawa or other countries where there is little mixing of the races and you will observe that they do not have the problems and ethnic wars and outbreaks of racial violence that we have in the United States and where their nationalism keeps a protective coat of armor around their sense of racial purity.
One of the reasons why Antonio Villaraigosa got elected mayor of Los Angeles was to try to stem the rampant drug use and gang warfare between Blacks and Hispanics. Yet, the divisions are deep and will require a lot more tact than the majority of the empowered Hispanic community can expect from Villaraigosa.
Rodgriguez’ “Don’t worry, be hoppy” Utopian world is an admirable ideal, but it’s just that—Utopian—and unrealistic.
I think Rodriquez should stop watching so many JLo movies. And God forbid that the completely egocentric, full-of-himself, Ben Afflick would procreate with anyone, let alone Jennifer Lopez.
Posted by Richard2 on Aug 19, 2005 at 11:44 PM Sorry if my last comment was offensive. I was saying it in jest because the rest of my post was pretty melancholy. I was not trying to demonize women in any way and apologize if I came across as trying to do such.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 20, 2005 at 1:34 AM I am surprised musing mama put so much into that little statement I made. It was not a manifestation of my subconscious desires for the future of women at all. I have always supported the feminist cause. It’s not like the picture was an actual person, it was merely a caricature.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 20, 2005 at 1:41 AM Musing mama,
I totally agree with you. I was bowled over by the ‘porn’ comment—yes! that is it! So much is explained, isn’t it? If you want to know what your culture is saying, ask someone outside of it, right!
If you look at the literature from the second wave feminist movement in the 60s, the WOMEN, that is, you find that they/we had to fight separate battles within the movement itself. This is an old theme (read: ancient) and doesn’t necessarily reflect that which is dark in the progressive movement. We’re all products of our time/culture. What counts is a person’s response it. This said:I take heart with Liberal’s response, and take it as ironic. My past readings of Liberal have all shown a person who is balanced, fair, deep thinking, NOT sexist (or any suffix, for that matter).
The ones I take seriously don’t behave as Liberal has. I take it lightly here.
Posted by lbyland on Aug 21, 2005 at 8:54 AM I am sorry Ibyland that my comment has lowered your impression of me. I will say again that it was made merely in jest and was not meant to be taken seriously. I hope you understand where I am coming from. ITT never had a drawing like this one nest to a cover story so I thougt I might comment on it. That was my intention.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 21, 2005 at 7:36 PM Liberal, I’m not sure I took lbyland’s comments as a dig at you at all. Actually, it sounded to me like you were being complimented. Maybe I’m the one that took this a different way.
As to the rather risque, teaser picture with the dancing hula girl, I don’t see that as particularly germaine to the article written by Richard Rodriguez. As a matter of fact, I found it pretty dumb since I don’t see any connection with the caricature to the article at all.
Besides, if you’ve been to Hawaii you certainly know that it is not some pristine island where everybody takes off their clothes. I believe Mr. Rodriguez is playing silly mind games with that inference.
Posted by Richard2 on Aug 21, 2005 at 7:51 PM Hi—I’m the managing editor, and just wanted to weigh in on the image. My fault—I was thinking of more of a kitschy, tongue-in-cheek hula-girl image when I suggested the illustration idea, and didn’t take the time to double check it before it went up. Apologies to everyone it offended, and I hope you’ll still read the article, which I think has lots of interesting points to make.
Posted by Jessica Clark on Aug 21, 2005 at 10:30 PM Oh goody! MORE identity politics! More about RACE! RACE RACE RACE RACE! You social liberals are like the mirror images of the white power kids.
When are you going to learn that a focus on social liberalism and identity politics is the tool of the elite? You are fighting the LAST war. Fight THIS war instead—the economics war. That was a civil rights war 30 years ago. We won that. Now quit fighting it, cuz as long as you are fighting the last war, and trying to pull us into an ever-deepening morass of identity politics and race-to-the-bottom death spiral of 3rd world immigration, you might as well be drawing a check from THE MAN.
Come to think of it, ARE you on their payroll. I think the answer is obvious….
Posted by cryofan on Aug 21, 2005 at 10:59 PM musing mama can you say “estrogen poisoning”? I think you can. :)
And liberal - it is fine for you to appreciate a pretty image of a girl. All of us guys do (and even admit it, if we are not pussy whipped!).
Jessica - you have nothing to apoligize for. Just make a note to give musing mama what she needs next time (a buff brownskinned native Hawaiian man with a bulging loincloth would do nicely - and the gays would like it too!).
Everyone take a deep breath and relax. Life is to enjoy. . .
Posted by wolf on Aug 22, 2005 at 2:47 PM My comments were about the drawing and meant for the editors, not Liberal, whose comments didn’t offend me.
Jessica, apology accepted.
wolf, I do not want to see a drawing of a grinning loinclothed brown man and do not consider facile turnabouts of tastelessness equality beause for me equality is a real goal focused on human dignity. Equality, if it is to be more than an empty buzzword, doesn’t mean treating men in the same disrespectful way our culture treats women and calling it even. That would be retribution, not equality.
Posted by musing mama on Aug 23, 2005 at 12:13 AM Since Jessica’s in the mood to apologize for inappropriate pictures posted at “In These Times”, I wonder if she might consider extending one in this case:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=614_0_1_0_C
Perhaps she was not personally involved with this article, but regardless I would be interested to know if she is as concerned with the posting of a libelous picture as she is with the posting of what some (not me) might consider to be a politically incorrect one.
For proper context, she might want to read the comments by me and others about the article and picture.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 23, 2005 at 5:47 AM Hi musing mama. Well, i hear you. I personally see the world quite differently. Appreciating beauty in all of its forms seems to be a good thing, at least in my world view. I also see human sexuality as being fun, playful and good. Certainly i cannot see such an innocuous picture as shown at the beginning of this article as demeaning or somehow an attack on human dignity. But that is just how i think and feel. . .
Have an enjoyable day.
Posted by wolf on Aug 23, 2005 at 2:16 PM I stumbled onto Richard Rodriguez’s article at the NCM web site…then I read all of the comments and couldn’t help but laugh. Comments started out pertaining to the article. It funny how those commenting then started in on each other. All seem to have lost the message in the Rodriguez article. The message wasn’t about what is…but about what is happening and what is to come in America. The intermarriages between all races are contributing to an earlier piece by Rodriquez where, I believe, he coined “The Browning of America.” Of course there are conflicts between races and ethnicities and nationalities, call them what you will. These are islands and whittling away at the edges are those wo meet, fall in love and marry, much to the chagrin of their families.
Posted by jcalderon on Aug 23, 2005 at 6:06 PM Musing M. is bright, articulate and borderline bitter.
Liberal’s was a harmless crack.
Give him a break, for crying out loud.
Women (world wide) go to extravagant lengths and spend the equivalent of a dozen small countries’ GDP to commodatize themselves in order to compete for males.
And now there is a gestapo within the gender who wish to smite a man, should he react positively to women’s time, effort and aestetic criteria for sensuality as made manifest on their visage/body.
Try and forget how to hate, MM. Remember how to love.
You are fighting an assinine (sic), not to mention losing battle.
And though brilliantly wrought, your argument is at bottom illogical, puerile ... at best.
3 Cheers for Liberal!
HIP HIP ...
AET
Posted by Arnold Ernest Tracey on Aug 27, 2005 at 1:11 AM Well, that was interesting. Lively.
I (and all of us here, I dare propose) could say an awful lot , but I stay my hand this time(cheers all ‘round), but (wait for it) for one thing.
Everything said is valid, and here’s why: Progressives think for themselves, and they do so broadly and deeply. No superficial screed, no indeed. It is the very thing that drew me in to the ranks, oh, way back when. The opposite is the mark of the right wing, all lockstep-and-over-the-cliff for the sake of the party, a cult, an ideology (etc.) Not for the progressives. No, there will always be a large number analyzing and synthesizing, CLOSE to the cliff at times, but always shouting out, “Hey, look at it this way.”
What appears to be sturm und drang unto apocalypse, is actually an asset. Look closely. We’re not prickly, we’re sensitive, fair, open, accepting thinkers; leaders (only followers when well-convinced)—you want the opposite?
Cheers for progressives, for ‘The Progressive,’ plaudits for our sensitivity to human need. Kudos all ‘round, including and especially the editor.
Posted by lbyland on Aug 28, 2005 at 9:36 AM If progressives were more immune to regurgitating ideological nonsense than conservatives than liberal men like Mr. Tracey would not recycle Rush Limbaugh’s rantings about “feminazis” because one woman expressed her opinion on a drawing.
What to do when both conservative and liberal men rebuke opinion-giving women by calling them bitter, hateful, puerile smiters of men forming a gestapo to stop men from “allowing” women to compete for them by presenting their bodies as objects for men’s sexual pleasure?
How disappointingly regressive liberals are to women’s rights these days.
Posted by musing mama on Aug 29, 2005 at 7:40 PM “No one wears clothes in Hawaii….”
Oh, yes we do; we most definitely wear clothes in Hawaii. Passing off another uneducated stereotype due to lack of research are we?
Jeanne
Posted by Jeanne96813 on Sep 21, 2005 at 7:55 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Richard Rodriguez
- Here Comes the Neighborhood
Richard Rodriguez examines the Hawaiianization of the United States
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
