Asians Have the Darndest Surnames

I have a friend named Tiffany Sun. If she married a guy with the last name "Moon," she would be Tiffany Sun Moon, under Western conventions. If a girl existed named Annie Ching and she married a boy with the surname "Chong"...? In this post, I seek an examination of our multi-cultural identities through the treatment of our surnames as (imperfect) signifiers of what goes on within and around us.

I feel ambivalently about the Romanization of our surnames. It simultaneously represents the subjugation of Asian identities to Western conventions, but also the transformation of Asian identities into something else, an Asian-whatever (Korean-American, Vietnamese-Canadian, Japanese-British, Chinese-Australian, etc) identity that straddles oceans. Already, we are not completely what our forebears were. What are our parents, if not unreal, for insisting on an impossible cultural purity? However, neither are we yet completely assimilated.

There are several questions to answer. What does it mean to stay true to our heritage? Is it sufficient that we have retained our surnames, but Romanized? Other groups, to avoid persecution, changed their surnames altogether, some by translation. If my surname were translated from "Chang /Cheung /Zhang /Chiong," it would be "Chapter." I would be "Ezra Chapter." Should we campaign for the right to change our legal surnames to Chinese characters? That course of action doesn't seem prudent. Even if imperfectly, the Westerners are able to attempt to utter our sacred surnames through their Romanizations. Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves a more important question: Is it even necessary or important enough of a matter, to remain true to our heritage?

There are more issues to consider, if language use is to be considered a representation of cultural imperialism or hegemony. The use of Chinese characters was once part and parcel of Chinese domination in all spheres of life in much of East Asia. The Vietnamese, Japanese, and Koreans all used Chinese characters in the past. The Japanese altered their script. The Koreans created an alphabetic script. The Viets threw off one master only to receive another, and their entire language was standardized to a Romanization. Fittingly, when Chinese people go by their Romanized surnames, they get a taste of their own medicine.

Perhaps, language-- as a tool of power-- is only effective if there is something of value to demolish. If we hold our cultural heritage loosely, it won't hurt when we inevitably lose it through generations of living in the West. It only matters that we hold ethnic culture so tightly if we believe it to be superior to others' and integral to living, yes? Perhaps what really matters is living a meaningful life in view of God, which may not necessitate clinging tightly to heritage. Could it be, that culture is not more important than life itself?

This post really has no conclusions, but merely presents the shortcomings of particular, more traditional perspectives. I have no illusions as to my ability to convince everybody to rediscover their respective heritages, or to let go of them. Neither are those the only options. You can have both the old and the new, or neither! Truly, as Asian-Americans, there is no right way to deal with heritage; I only hope that each of us has peace with it.

I just hope not to see people walking around with names like Jon, Jeff, Peter, or Joy Yellow.

No, I'm not interested in talking to your father.

Mimetic Desire is the millstone that sinks many. The most tempting thing to a 22-29 year olds? Domesticity. Really... is that your highest aspiration? I am disappointed in you.

The Effect of Racism on National Integrity

Warning: Rant incoming.

"I don't care what country they're from, they should respect (something or other)."

When white people even so much as insinuate that I'm from a different country, it turns me off to this "great" US of A. Before you said what you said, I was ready to go work my ass off and donate half my lifetime's wages to the government, get my ass blown off in a war for this place. But now...?

When you assume I'm from some place else, you do yourself a disservice. I was in fact born here, raised here, and haven't left the country in over a decade. Sure, my family came from elsewhere, but with the exception of the oppressed indigenous population, whose didn't? The implication you make by dismissing the one possibility that in truth is actuality is that I'm not "from" here, and I'm not welcome. In that sense of unwelcome, my contributions have been discarded.

We, as a demographic, have contributed, are contributing, and will contribute (if you'll have us). I dare you to refuse to let us contribute; take away our contributions, I guarantee this country will be lesser for it. It is because we are invested in helping this nation work that it hurts to be judged by our appearances. What is it about my eyes and complexion that makes me automatically less socially or culturally legitimate as an American?

Perhaps your concept of "American" is too small, your narrative to narrow to incorporate ours, your hypocritical lies to weak to bear the weight of our existence. That's how you do disservice to yourself by judging. By closing yourself to what else "American" might possibly mean, you limit the strengths other traditions might contribute, outside of your own European heritage. Believe it or not, the "American" perspective of culture has its blind spots, of which we are discussing one. By closing yourself to full acceptance of people of other colors and cultures, you undermine the very ideals you claim to champion.

What happens in the aftermath of racism is that those at whom the racism is directed at feel rejected. Feeling rejected actually does make some of us disengage a bit. Your racism does, in some cases, create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people disengage from a belief in the American nation, the scores of years this house has left to stand will be limited. Racism causes our will to fracture, our unity to unravel.

I dare you to win me and people as disillusioned as myself back over, white America; allow yourself to be joined by others' Americas. If you love America, accept us as your own.

On Northwestern's Live Sex Demonstration

As some of you may have heard, a live sex demonstration occured after a class session for a human sexuality class at Northwestern. A girl shed her clothing and her boyfriend used a sex tool to penetrate her and bring her to orgasm.

Here's the Christian principle on sex: Sex is good... within marriage. The question here is, "What is the meaning of 'within marriage?'" Does it mean that sex should be kept out of sight from the public sphere? But another question would be... "Wouldn't good sex be better (within marriage), and better sex be awesome?" How does a couple make sex better? Are they to rely only on experimentation? Is the dissemination of knowledge about how to please your spouse better an illicit transfer of knowledge?

One issue often brought up is that, more often than not, the sufferers in the event of low quality sex are more often the females. Females have been long-suffering in the traditional marriage, sexually in addition to the myriad number of other ways.

Scenario: A dude is a premature ejaculator. There is no possible way he is gonna please his wife with his penis before he finishes. Is it ok for him to go to say, a book or a sex therapist, to get ideas or advice on other methods to please his wife? What ways of learning this information cross the line into sin?

I am all for females orgasming. I am all for better sex. I just don't think a demonstration is necessary to learn the information to make orgasms happen. I assume throughout this post that the demonstration is carried out with the best of intentions. But... is intent enough to separate this demonstration from any other sexual presentation (including porn)? I don't think so.

Now, what is so different about a live demonstration (as opposed to a book or a therapist)? Why is this not different from porn or a performance at a strip club? One can argue that, since this event was a performance, that the entire audience was invited into what should have been reserved for just a husband and his wife. Why should the fact that this demonstration happened for the sake of knowledge (as opposed to pleasure) make it exempt from the same judgment that a lapdance or stripping routine receives?

In my humble opinion, the educational value of such a demonstration is dubious, at best. It doesn't take much skill to stick a power tool into your partner. Does that point to more sleazy intentions? Not necessarily, although I do believe that the mixed reactions to the demonstration, even on my own part, shows how deadened we are... not just to the sin that occured, but to the very wonder that sex should be. Such reactions are the aggregate result of all the other influences in our culture. I write my arguments out of a purely logical approach to what Scripture has to say about sex, but my heart is unmoved.

Le Cose Vorrei Scrivere Di

In no particular order,

- The NBA CBA and revenue sharing

- Carmelo's trade situation

- The Holy Spirit's conviction about jokes I make in bad taste

- Psychoanalysis of myself through examination of past relationships

- The girl I have wanted to love for the past four years, and why I may or may not actually love her