We are writing this letter in response to the article "5th [the headline is inaccurate-it's actually the 3rd] South Asian show low-key, vigorous," from the Nov. 13 edition of the Review. The article is extremely condescending towards South Asian cultures, and contains several factual errors. The editors of the Review obviously did not feel it necessary to send a reporter who has a thorough knowledge of South Asian cultures. What's more, the reporter did not feel that it was necessary to talk to any of the performers or organizers of the event. One major and grievous omission is that the article neglects to mention that the show was put together by the South Asian Student's Association, and was student-run and organized.
In writing the article, the reporter comes off sounding like a colonial anthropologist. The article states that the cultural show offered some "tasty examples of unfamiliar performance practices." This marks the location of the speaker, and his relation to the Cultures being presented. South Asian cultures are reduced to food, fit for consumption. Lavish and sumptuous curries to delight the sophisticated palate. To those of us South Asians and non-South Asians who are invested in this culture, it is not tasty, and it is not unfamiliar. It is "unfamiliar" to some Oberlin students because US society continues to view us as foreigners, and also because the Theater and Dance Department, the Art History Department and the Conservatory of Music do not have any faculty who specialize in South Asian Cultural forms.
The article also portrays the show as "casual" and "low-key." Here, South Asian culture is presented as "low-key" precisely because it is unfamiliar to the writer, and to the intended audience of this article. Forget the fact that some of the acts in the show come out of centuries-old traditions. Forget the many histories involved with each of the acts. When the reporter hears a sitar, he thinks of the Beatles. Here's another tasty example from the article, "[it was interesting to see] exotic, Eastern Music being played in front Of the huge Western classical organ in Warner Concert Hall." South Asian cultures are "exotic," they are "Eastern." They can never exist in the "West" except as foreign elements-very interesting indeed. Once again, South Asian cultures and people are presented as perpetually foreign; people who have to be spoken for (even though the reporter made no attempt to speak to us).
Here is the reporter's description of the bharatnatyam dance style: "...apparently it is very novel to see [it] being performed today... this dance was very rigid and geometric in its movements ... a lot of arm movement, stomping of the feet, and rotating of the hips ... it seemed to be a traditional trait for women to roll their eyes and wear an expression of forced happiness." First of all -it is not novel to see bharatnatyam performed today -in South Asia, or in the rest of the world. That statement is simply inaccurate. As for the description -would any dance at Fall Forward ever be described in this way? This description is not just fueled by ignorance towards the bharatnatyam dance style. It also comes out of the portrayal of South Asian cultures that is prevalent throughout the article: exotic, bizarre, weird. These views of South Asian cultures are extremely lacking in respect, and are deeply rooted in the same white supremacism that enables the reporter to speak for us.
Apparently the cultural show felt like a "South Asian Star Search" to the reporter. Would you describe any dance concert or conservatory recital in this way? Probably not. Maybe he and the editors felt that they could get away with it, though. because It was "foreign" or "exotic." Later on, he refers to "contemporary remixes of ancient Hindu songs." There are two problems with this. First of all, the song in question is from a recent film, and so, cannot be "ancient." Sorry, South Asia is not as ancient and primordial as you wish it to be; it exists in the contemporary moment too. Second of all, there is no linguistic or musical tradition known as "Hindu." "Hindu refers to a set of religious beliefs. The song is in Hindi.
The reporter and the Review editors are obviously ignorant about a lot of aspects of South Asian cultures What is worse though, is that the editors see no problem in printing an article that is racist in its approach towards the cultures that it is writing about. Perhaps the editors feel that this article is geared towards the Review's readership -but we are a part of that readership. We demand that our voices he heard and respected. The editors of the Review should apologize for printing this inaccurate, disrespectful, and damaging article.
How many students of color can you find in your classes?
You can probably count them on one hand.
The way Oberlin is portrayed to the outside world is different from the reality. Two notable examples are the viewbook and the students-of-color recruitment film, "Follow the Morning Star" (narrated by Bill Cosby!),which present Oberlin College as a utopian, multicultural community. In fact, Oberlin is dominated by white, middle class culture* and is very fragmented.
This is why we need a place for students of color and low-income students: in order to reaffirm our own identities, support and challenge each other, and strategize ways to affect social change. This is one of many definitions of "safe space."
We are not being exclusionary*, elitist* or separatist. This is not reverse racism*. Students of color and low-income students do not have the privilege, like the majority of white, middle class students, to enter or maintain any space. Historically, whites have claimed dominion over land, labor, resources, women and indigenous peoples for their own advancement. For example, the majority of the spaces - dorms, dining halls, classes, student organizations - are organized by white students and faculty. So what? This privilege marginalizes our communities and prevents us from even having a struggle. We are constantly censoring ourselves from vocalizing our issues and experiences. It also endangers our potential as students at this college and as members of this society. We are constantly attacked and delegitimized. We can not focus on our own development.
OSCA is a prime example of a predominantly white, middle class organization. Though not written in policy, it covertly excludes people of color and low income students. Many low income students join OSCA specifically because they cannot afford CDS. However, the majority of OSCA members did not join for those reasons and are insensitive to low-income students' issues. And they don't even care! As well, students of color feel left out of the co-op dining experience, due to the lack of political discourse and sensitivity to different experiences. Third World Co-op is a space for students of color, international students, first-generation and low-income students to feel more comfortable expressing their cultures and issues.
In response to recent racist* attacks on safe space, it is important to address the Asian American struggle and the Asian American Alliance as a safe space. Unlike the way Baillet's comic strip portrayed Asian Americans and Asian American issues, Asian Americans have had a long history of being exploited and a rich history of struggle. AAA was formed to establish Asian American Studies at Oberlin College almost 30 years ago. Its members have been incredibly active and vocal and have made many contributions to the APA community and the broader Oberlin community. AAA is also a safe space.
Despite this history, Asian American students have been portrayed as nerds and as both passive and threatening. The comic strip was able to simplify Asian American issues into a caricature to provoke the Asian American community and other supporters of safe space. We view this as an overt sign of a racist culture.
The boundaries of these safe spaces are not arbitrary. They are directly related to the commitment and purpose of these spaces, specifically anti-racist and class struggle. This does not exclude the possibility for white, middle class and upper class students from becoming allies*. Few people on this campus would question the need to have closed Sexual Assault Support Team (SAST) and Sexual Information Center (SIC) meetings, or a safe space for women (ex., Baldwin), though these spaces are questioned in larger society. People of color and low-income communities however are consistently questioned and under suspicion.
Why is it that these spaces are continually challenged and violated?
As the comic showed, the majority of white folks fear change of the status quo and conspiracies against them (¡and with good reason!, considering the past 800 years of imperialism). They want to know what it is that non-white people say and do in these spaces. The dominance of white, middle class culture prevents us from informing our own community members and to communicate the function of these spaces with the rest of the campus.
We hope this letter enhances and challenges the rest of the campus in terms of their understanding of safe space and the different communities that need that space. We also urge you to keep in mind that not all of these communities were discussed in this letter.
DEFINITIONS
*white, middle class culture: a set of values, beliefs, traditions, and ideas based on a white-racialized, middle class experience, which has become universalized.
*exclusionary: to exclude certain groups of people based on economic and social inferiority.
*elitist: to hold a particular group as superior and enable that group to have power over the majority, via money, institutions, ideas, and culture.
*reverse racism: a concept created by a racist backlash in response to the gains made by people of color on this campus and in broader society; in practice, it does not exist. SEE definition of racist.
*racist (or racism or white supremacy): the belief in the superiority of the white race, as expressed and acted upon by institutions and within certain power structures; this manifests itself in the justified subjugation and oppression of non-white peoples, white centrism and Euro-centrism in academic programs and mainstream culture, and the development of dehumanizing and degrading notions regarding non-whites
*allies: individuals characterized by an understanding of the personal and institutional experiences of specific marginalized communities and their needs without appropriating those experiences and needs; they recognize and understand the need for self-determination among members of those oppressed communities, and take responsibility for their own personal and political analysis and change.
The Nov. 13 issue of the Review contains an extremely hateful cartoon, "Bad Faith," which is directed specifically towards the Asian American Alliance, and more generally towards safe spaces on this Campus. I have to wonder about the intent of the Review's editors, and whom they see as their readership. Last year, the Review declined to print an edition of Toupy Doops, which was seen as an attack on (white) women. Why is it, then, that an attack on Asian Pacific American women and men is seen as legitimate and print-friendly, considering the Review's readership? Why the double standard?
Look at the cartoon. How is AAA represented? A single male figure. Never mind the involvement of so many Asian Pacific American Students over almost three decades in the organization-it is presented as one man acting alone. Go ahead and continue to ignore the Asian Pacific American women on this Campus-Ignore the fact that women make up half of the officers in AAA, that women have historically played a central role in the organization. This solitary male depicted as wearing glasses-he's the nerdy guy who's trying hard to be accepted, to be "cool." Does anyone remember Long Duck Dong?
AAA is represented in the cartoon as a racist and exclusionary organization. This logic relics on liberal universalism, and would have us ignore the systemic nature of racism, as well as asymmetries of power arising from racism. By claiming the Universal right to enter a space that has historically existed for Asian Pacific Americans, AAA's critics are claiming the privilege to override that history, and to dictate the actions of Asian Pacific Americans. That privilege does not arise out of a vacuum, but out of a specific set of social relationships, which arise out of the white supremacist society that they occur in. It is precisely because of this that the membership of AAA has existed, and needs to continue to exist, as a closed space.
The cartoon also voices the anxiety that when people of color organize among ourselves, our goal is violence against white people. This, again, misreads the logic of safe space. It is also extremely egocentric to think that white people are always the topic of conversation among APAs. First of all, AAA would never attack "round-eyes" because some members, like myself are "round-eyes." Second of all, it is ludicrous to think that the Oberlin Asian American Alliance is fixated with "taking over" the UC school system. To digress for a moment- keep in mind that the UC schools have a quota of how many APAs they admit per year. Once again, it's that white-supremacist anxiety- "Oh no! The Chinks, Japs, Gooks, Dot-heads and Rag-heads are taking over!" This plays on the rich history Asian stereotypes- Fu Manchu, the conniving Dragon Lady, the evil priest Kali Ma, and devious, behind-the-scenes campaign donors. It's the "model minority" gone out of control. It is also reminiscent of the history of racist stereotypes of people of color in the US: the savage Native American chief, the African American rapist or welfare mother, the Chicano bandit.
I have to ask-what motivated the editors of the Review to print this cartoon in our college newspaper? Did they want to protect the cartoonist's "free speech?" Last year, a cartoon wasn't printed (a decision which I support) because it was misogynist in its portrayal of women, and in its celebration of violence against women. Apparently, though, the uncritical representation of Asian Pacific Americans by utilizing racist stereotypes is not seen by the Review's editors as racist, but as "social commentary." What about hate speech? Why is it permissible to denigrate people of color- specifically APA's, in the Review? APA's are viewed as a docile, silent minority, but these views are deeply racist. In choosing to print this cartoon, the editors of the Review condoned, strengthened, and perpetuated racism on this campus.
In last week's Review, there was a call to end U.S. intervention in Iraq. I think it would be a very nice thing if the U.S. could walk from the situation and everything would be okay. I have hopes for a world filled with peace and love and all that liberal hippie crap. But I also don't think that the world is ready for all of that to happen spontaneously. Sometimes, we need to try to make things like that happen. In this case, as in many others, we're not going to get peace and safety for the people in and around Iraq without getting involved, and sometimes getting involved means economic sanctions, airstrikes or even all out war.
At the end of the Persian Gulf Police Action (or Imperialist War, or Great American Ass Kicking, or whatever you like to call it), the Iraqis signed a cease-fire that allowed the UN to investigate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Horrible nasty things, like nerve gas, and biological agents and nuclear weapons. Weapons that kill indiscriminately. Weapons that go beyond killing a few thousand, that instead leave nothing but scorched earth. Weapons that the current Iraqi government has used before, not just on opponents in war, (it used nerve gas and biological agents on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war), but also on civilian populations (Kurdish Iraqis were attacked with chemical weapons as part of Iraq's ethnic war on the Kurds.). Since we know that the Iraqis have these weapons, and we know that they have no qualms about using them, shouldn't we hold them to the agreement that they signed?
Over the last six years, the Iraqi government has repeatedly tried to squirm out from under things it has previously agreed to by simply ignoring their obligations. When the US or the UN confronts them and tries to get them to do what they agreed to, they delay and resist until we lose interest or back down. If we want to live in a world where weapons of mass destruction are acceptable, and available to anyone who wants to use them, then we should back down. However, I ask that everyone remember Neville Chamberlain. In a strikingly similar situation, he tried to appease the Germans just prior to the Second World War. He too, wanted peace. He said that the independence of the Sudetenland was a small price to pay for "peace in our time." If we won't take a lesson from history, we shouldn't bother to write it down.
You may feel free to tell me that I am wrong, that I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. This is true, but the lesson we should be able to learn from the mistakes Chamberlin made is one of caution. When we talk about the Second World War, we tend to say a lot of things like "never again," and criticize the use of nuclear weapons. If we are going to say such things, we need to be willing to back these statements up. If we are more cautious now, if we treat the Iraqis more skeptically, we might avoid the mistakes we made the last time around. Before we are willing to give up our position, to let the Iraqi government by, we would do well to remember the past and think about the costs.
It is by no means necessary that we renew airstrikes or start an all out war on Iraq. We simply need to remember what is at stake here, and what the risks are if we make a mistake. I think that the economic sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible, and it is in the best interests of everyone if no force is used. However, there are some things that will weigh more on our collective conscience. If inaction now leads to disaster in the future, it will not be something we will be able to forget soon.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 10, November 20, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.