Post 2/2
newexcursion.blogspot.com/2008/06/maxine-hong-kingston-ignorance-and.html
Skipped parts - which can be read at the original link - as I'm not all that interested in the discussion on "feminism". Lots of Chinese and other E Asian women avoid it like the plague. It's only some christian Asian women who tend to be drawn to it, in order to liberate the (actually-oppressed) christian women of their kind - from what is actually the fallout of christianism. And of course some modern Asian men tend to be drawn to "feminism" - the word and concept - in order to compensate for real or perceived historical wrongs. The difference is such E Asian male feminists don't attack other Asian men, whereas the oft-seen [angelsk-speaking] Indian male feminists are actually the usual pseculars who tend to project themselves as the good guys and every other Indian - especially Hindu - male as the bad guy: i.e. they decry the evil done by "all" [other] ethnic men to ethnic women, but in doing so they particularly want *you* -the observer- to be aware and recognise that the speaker is not bad and is indeed commendable, for the very fact that *he* denounced all the others for their (alleged) collective crime first. <- Yes, it's very convenient to denounce masses of anonymous (not to mention mostly-innocent) Others, and play the eternal hero oneself, I'm sure.
But it's been my experience that the real pro-women people in the subcontinent are actually the heathens, including memorably the Hindoo males of older generations. (Their pro-female stance is subtle - but unmistakable. Subtle because their stance/their view is natural and not-artificial - i.e. their standpoint does not scream for attention like the pseudo-egalitarians that project themselves as feminists and want to be recognised as such. While the proof that the aforementioned Hindoos' stance is pro-female lies in the fact that in the minds of female generations in their vicinity and family, they create an immunity to social engineering and a willingness to defend Hindoo society/tradition including Hindoo males against alien and alienated attacks. I can't think of better proof at this moment. No there is none, I think.)
The fact is, heathens think like animals do: they don't see and hence don't believe in a gender divide, but act as a community unit.
Again: But it's been my experience that the real pro-women people in the subcontinent are actually the heathens, including memorably the Hindoo males of older generations. <- I suppose it's like jaewhan/the bloghost said - see previous posting - about Chinese culture being rather pro-woman. It's funny he noticed that. Because that's actually a heathen perspective. A lot of E Asian female - heathen - defenders of E Asian society/culture/tradition [religion] (defending against brainwashed local fembot as well as general alien attacks) perceive and experience their society that way. It is a valid and true view of their reality, one that the christowest never allows a glimpse of to the audience that listens to the christowest and christoconditioned.
I don't want to keep drawing parallels with the kind of crap Hindus have to contend with, that's not really what this thread is for. But the line about Kingston, that
is exactly the same with every anti-Hindu in India. They're not outed for their ideologies (and they all have an ideology) and the ideological impetus in their anti-Hinduism, just because the oppressors now look Indian. Before, they just looked British/Euro-colonial, so the oppressors' motivations and their alien status was immediately obvious to Hindus just by looking at them. Now, the anti-Hindus and traitors look like Indians hence Hindus. And their inculturation and cryptochristianism (catholic Ambika Soni with her bindi) is further used to expressly force the misidentification all the more.
newexcursion.blogspot.com/2008/06/maxine-hong-kingston-ignorance-and.html
Quote:June 8, 2008
Maxine Hong Kingston, Ignorance, and the Battle for Mainstream Recognition (Asian American Feminism Pt. 4)
Quote:"What in G0d's name??? They let ASIAN-MAN-HATER#2 Maxine Hong Kingston write a new introduction to one of the RARE humanizing portrayals of an Asian man as a s*xually-potent being??? WTF and HTF did THAT happen??? Shyt, why not let David Duke write a new intro to the Autobiography of Malcolm X for chrissakes???"
--"Krome" from Modelminority.com
(I don't know much US history or current events, but IIRC David Duke is a white supremacist. I think Elst once discussed him, I could be wrong.
Anyway, there's a parallel with the Kingston example above in how the Wendy Donigers - including native anti-Hindus - are repeatedly invited to write about Hindus and Hindu religion in western "academe".)
The dialogue above is a classic from the Asian American blogosphere. I've seen it quoted a few times. This may be the first and only time you see a 44's blog post link to mm.com, but I have to commend the commenter Krome for his insightful observation. While I wouldn't condone the language that followed Krome's quote above (which you can see in the link), I think he's 100% right about the hypocrisy and/or ignorance of the book publishers. Considering the fact that Kingston has spent her entire career emasculating Asian men (through the aforementioned essay by our friend Krome), promoting a culture of pseudo-feminist narcissism (It takes a real egomaniac to name her autobiography "The Woman Warrior," especially when she hasn't even fought anyone or achieved anything of value), distorting important Chinese myths (Mulan and Yue Fei are two different characters), making up lies about Chinese culture (contrary to Kingston's words, the Chinese words for "slave" and "woman" are not the same), and turning Asian American literature into a black hole that sucks the life out of our community rather than uplifts the level of intellect and thought of our people, it's incredibly ironic and hypocritical that the publishers hired her to write the introduction to a book that goes against everything she has spent her career destroying. As Krome correctly implies, letting Kingston write a new intro to "The Lover" is like letting David Duke write a new intro to the Autobiography of Malcolm X. She just happens to be the same color as the people she oppresses.
Recognizing the indefensible lies that Kingston perpetuated about us, these days it seems that Kingston has very little support even among hardcore activists. Reappropriate Jenn, for example, who calls herself an Asian American feminist, usually deflects criticisms of Kingston by saying that there are other--therefore implying better--Asian American feminists, though Jenn still somewhat defends Kingston. She, of course, is right on the first part; wrong to defend Kingston though. AsianBGirl, Sargassosea, and Xian say the same, though without defending Kingston. They too are right.
Where some of us diverge, however, is on our ideas on how to best cope with a mainstream that is hostile towards our own recognition as human beings.
[...]
Given the fact that the toxic Kingstonian "feminism" is mainstream and supported by mainstream institutions, I don't think it's enough to simply concentrate on the good while ignoring the bad. We need to stamp it out and take over the mainstream. Working by ourselves is good for the time being, but ultimately it's not enough, and we should always keep the final goal of conquering the mainstream in mind.
Here's where we agree (I don't know if everyone agrees on #2, but I haven't yet heard any substantial counter-arguments):
1. Kingstonism is mainstream which means that it's the form of Asian American Feminism most accepted by white folk.
2. Kingstonism is a terrible form of feminism and doesn't accomplish anything.
3. There are real Asian American feminists out there.
[...]
While I agree with Xian that we need to build it, practically I think we have to go after mainstream coverage. Even if we decide to start small, part of our goals should focus on destroying that which poisons us. We should be intent on destroying mainstream ideas and replacing them with our own so that we can harness that institutional support. My reasoning is simple. Given the reach of the mainstream--through broadcast media, mainstream news outlets, influence in the universities, along with the paid ivory tower figureheads who promote Kingstonism--there is no way that a small band of disparate feminists can maximize their efficiency in getting the message out without taking aim at the mainstream and seeking mainstream support. We eventually want the funding, the airwaves, and the media coverage. Even here as we speak and learn, we haven't yet identified any strong Asian American feminists who are creating the intellectual ideas that can liberate Asian American women from Kingstonian orientalism. Why is it so hard to find them? It's because we are fighting against the tide of the mainstream. We shouldn't be fighting against the tide. The tide should be supporting us. If we don't have the goal of changing the tide, we'll always be swimming upstream. As Noam Chomsky said, the media "manufactures consent" with its pervasiveness and repetition. While we need to build up the real feminists, we also need to stop the fakes and liars.
I think it's clear: Real feminists can't live side by side with the Kingstonians because our ideas don't mesh well with one another. We promote truth; Kingstonism promotes lies and distortions. We celebrate ourselves; Kingstonism celebrates the supposed rescuing of Asian culture by Western culture. We promote compassion; Kingstonism promotes narcissism.
[...]
Skipped parts - which can be read at the original link - as I'm not all that interested in the discussion on "feminism". Lots of Chinese and other E Asian women avoid it like the plague. It's only some christian Asian women who tend to be drawn to it, in order to liberate the (actually-oppressed) christian women of their kind - from what is actually the fallout of christianism. And of course some modern Asian men tend to be drawn to "feminism" - the word and concept - in order to compensate for real or perceived historical wrongs. The difference is such E Asian male feminists don't attack other Asian men, whereas the oft-seen [angelsk-speaking] Indian male feminists are actually the usual pseculars who tend to project themselves as the good guys and every other Indian - especially Hindu - male as the bad guy: i.e. they decry the evil done by "all" [other] ethnic men to ethnic women, but in doing so they particularly want *you* -the observer- to be aware and recognise that the speaker is not bad and is indeed commendable, for the very fact that *he* denounced all the others for their (alleged) collective crime first. <- Yes, it's very convenient to denounce masses of anonymous (not to mention mostly-innocent) Others, and play the eternal hero oneself, I'm sure.
But it's been my experience that the real pro-women people in the subcontinent are actually the heathens, including memorably the Hindoo males of older generations. (Their pro-female stance is subtle - but unmistakable. Subtle because their stance/their view is natural and not-artificial - i.e. their standpoint does not scream for attention like the pseudo-egalitarians that project themselves as feminists and want to be recognised as such. While the proof that the aforementioned Hindoos' stance is pro-female lies in the fact that in the minds of female generations in their vicinity and family, they create an immunity to social engineering and a willingness to defend Hindoo society/tradition including Hindoo males against alien and alienated attacks. I can't think of better proof at this moment. No there is none, I think.)
The fact is, heathens think like animals do: they don't see and hence don't believe in a gender divide, but act as a community unit.
Again: But it's been my experience that the real pro-women people in the subcontinent are actually the heathens, including memorably the Hindoo males of older generations. <- I suppose it's like jaewhan/the bloghost said - see previous posting - about Chinese culture being rather pro-woman. It's funny he noticed that. Because that's actually a heathen perspective. A lot of E Asian female - heathen - defenders of E Asian society/culture/tradition [religion] (defending against brainwashed local fembot as well as general alien attacks) perceive and experience their society that way. It is a valid and true view of their reality, one that the christowest never allows a glimpse of to the audience that listens to the christowest and christoconditioned.
I don't want to keep drawing parallels with the kind of crap Hindus have to contend with, that's not really what this thread is for. But the line about Kingston, that
Quote:She just happens to be the same color as the people she oppresses
is exactly the same with every anti-Hindu in India. They're not outed for their ideologies (and they all have an ideology) and the ideological impetus in their anti-Hinduism, just because the oppressors now look Indian. Before, they just looked British/Euro-colonial, so the oppressors' motivations and their alien status was immediately obvious to Hindus just by looking at them. Now, the anti-Hindus and traitors look like Indians hence Hindus. And their inculturation and cryptochristianism (catholic Ambika Soni with her bindi) is further used to expressly force the misidentification all the more.