Bigot Watch: "Ragin' Asians!" by Erika Hobart

As some of you probably heard, recently the Seattle Weekly posted a trashy stereotypical article on the Asian nightlife scene called "Seattle's Ragin' Asians" by Erika Hobart (who is Asian American just FYI). In about four pages, Erika does nothing but portray Asians in a "exotic" light for things that are relatively common while slipping in numerous stereotypes while at it. The Asian American community is pissed, but quiet a few people are baffled why. And in this lovely post, I will explain why this article is offensive and why this should not be acceptable.

Pham is Vietnamese. He's invited several friends to his Tukwila townhome that Friday to pre-funk before going out to one of their favorite Seattle clubs: Venom. All the 20-somethings pre-funking at his house are also Asian—most of them Vietnamese or Cambodian.

Now there is nothing wrong with this part but I would like to note that the group Erika is portraying are southeast Asians. Outside of the whole "What about the other guys?!" issue, I also find this just reinforces some nasty stereotypes on this group. Unlike east Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) which generally have the stereotype of being lame mathematicians, southeastern Asians have more of the stereotype for being wild and lose. Blame this on the sex tourism within southeast Asia and the dominance of this group in pornos.

The gaggle of girls at his house could easily pass for sisters—sorority sisters, anyway. They're wearing strikingly similar dresses from Forever 21. Two of them—identical twins—look like they're in middle school, but are actually 20. They plan to get into Venom by waiting outside the club for a friend who's already gained entry to return with the IDs of those inside. (It can get so crowded at the rope that the bouncer won't notice an ID is being used twice.)

Nightlife photographer Luis Ongpin of streetpaparazzi.com, a local Web site devoted to photos of club-goers, often witnesses the operation go down while shooting at clubs like Venom and the War Room. "One Asian girl brings 10 with her. And to people that don't know them, they look similar enough to pull it off," he says.

First of all, what the hell is Erika thinking when writing this? Does she want these people to get in trouble? This is just irresponsible. If you read the comments in the article, Luis Ongpin actually comments and is not very happy. Second, what is with this whole "they all look young!" and "all look alike!" crap?

. The 22-year-old, whose cousin is married to the ukulele-strumming Nguyen, dons high heels and a skimpy purple get-up that stretches down to her mid-thighs, which she admits is actually just a long shirt. Mom just graduated from Seattle University, and is putting her job search on hold so she can enjoy one last responsibility-free summer.

Why is Erika sexualizing all the girls here? Is this to attract the white male audience or something?

"I have some white friends who won't even go [to Venom]," Mom says, laughing. "It's too Asian for them. For us, it's like family. Everybody knows each other there."

What the hell is "too Asian"? Do people run around eating kimchi by the gallons? Are there giant mecha robots as decoration? Are there posters dedicated to Ho Chi Minh? No seriously, I don't get it.

"Asians are like neon tetra fish—they travel in schools," Truong says. "You always see masses of them together. Once you get the group leader to come, you get the entire group. Then you get the friends of people in that group, and so forth."

... What the fuck?! Yes, I know Asians do generally travel in groups but then again so does everybody else. There is nothing unique or Asian here. Not to mention it just reinforces the whole "Asians have a group mentality!" stereotype.

"A lot of Asian-Americans that you see out there don't go to a four-year university or have a scene they really fit into," Ho explains. "They aren't going to frat parties or dive bars or sports bars. But many of them have been born and raised here, so they're incredibly in tune to the city. The club is a good comfort zone for them to go out with other Asian-Americans."

Really? I guess the explains the numerous Asian fraternities and sororities around UW. Or why I see several in places like Earl's on numerous occasions. Not to mention, clubs are not the only "Asian" night places they like to go too. I know several nightplaces around the Ave where the Asian population generally goes too that are not clubs. Why don't we talk about BBQ Chicken instead?

The girls begin sucking on Blow-Pops the bartender gave them, and then get up and start dancing with the sticks hanging out of their mouths. It's like a weird fetish-porn video.

If someone showed me this article without giving me any information on the author, I'd swear it be some white guy with an Asian fetish. Seriously, why is everything these Asian girls do being so hypersexualized?

Sab, like a majority of the clientele, hits up Venom on weekends because she's seeking the company of other Asians—not the people who fetishize them. Pham's circle arrives at and leaves the club together. It's like the Asian version of No Child Left Behind.

First of all, what the hell does Erika mean by NCLB? Is this another point about Asians looking young or something? Or is she thinking about "No Man Left Behind"? Second of all, has Erika actually been clubbing before? This is not an "Asian" thing. Its a universal rule among club goers. Everyone stick together, dance in a circle and leave together. Its a basic safety rule to make sure your drunk female cadre is not getting raped in the bathroom.

The patrons, most of whom are Filipino or Vietnamese, crowd the understaffed bar or thrash about on the dance floor.

Erika, "thrash dancing" is a type of moshing done at hardcore concerts. I doubt these people are listening to hardcore metal. Please be careful with your use of wording from now on.

And dear god, why is this article so long? Why did we have to go through that one page of how they drink and whine about people wearing similar clothes? Why didn't the editor make sure this article had a point?

many of them possessing that telling red-faced glow as they kneel over family-sized portions of greasy Chinese fare to soak up the booze in their bodies.

Oh god, now she brings up the "greasy Chinese food" stereotype. Chinese food is not anymore greasy then any other food; that Panda Express crap is not Chinese food. I seriously feel bad for these places mentioned in the article, especially the Purple Dot. I've been to the Purple Dot and none of the food is "greasy" and is actually fairly high quality. They serve Peking Duck for god sakes.


Of course, I could have saved all you and me the trouble of this by simply linking to this article from the Stranger that pretty much sums up the major issue we have with this article. And I do not care about what race Erika is, I don't believe in privilege politics and it does not change this article is garbage.

John Bolton is an idiot..

I was wrong; while everyone is celebrating the release of the two US journalists, warhawk John R. Bolton decided to be a debbie downer on the subject. John R. Bolton also proves himself not to be very knowledgeable on history.

ad_iconThe Clinton visit may have many other negative effects. In some ways the trip is a flashback to the unfortunate 1994 journey of former president Jimmy Carter, who disrupted the Clinton administration's nuclear negotiations with North Korea and led directly to the misbegotten "Agreed Framework."

First of all, there is no comparison to either of the situations. Jimmy Carter was sent by the US in hopes to brokering a mutual agreement with Kim Il Sung on the matter. What angered the Clinton administration was that Carter created a treaty with Kim Il Sung and announced it on television before telling Clinton. In this case, Clinton went with approval of Obama with a simple mission of getting the two journalists back (which many analysis believe was already negotiated before his arrival). Comparing the two situations is ridiculous.

North Korea violated the framework almost from the outset but nonetheless enticed the Bush administration into negotiations (the six-party talks) to discuss yet again ending its nuclear program in exchange for even more political and economic benefits.

Bolton is negating the fact that the US also violated the Agreed Framework when it came to offering aid. This was due to Republican opposition in Congress during the time. Despite this, we made better inroads in nuclear proliferation and had much better knowledge on the DPRK then we did during the first term of the Bush administration.

Also, why did Bush decide to start the Six Party talks again? Oh wait, I remember now; because their policy of doing nothing that was promoted by John Bolton was a failure and lead to the DPRK getting nuclear weapons in the first place. During this time, Bolton was the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and was kicked off the negotiations team with the DPRK due to his inability to keep his mouth shut at the negotiating table. Gee, now I remember why I don't take Bolton seriously.

Korea Herald article on the KCTU...

In response to the news of the KT pulling out of the KCTU, the Korea Herald has written an article wondering if this is a sign that the KCTU needs to change its confrontational tactics.

Because of its hard-line stance, the confederation has been criticized frequently by the government, businesses and conservatives. Especially the current Lee Myung-bak administration has maintained its firm stance on violent labor demonstrations, refusing to negotiate with the KCTU.

I do not know if this is really a bad thing; the public has sided with the KCTU publicly on several issues (notably the temporary workers problem). Furthermore, the KCTU's militant style is what separates itself from the FKTU.

Experts predict more member unions distancing themselves from the KCTU's excessive political struggles will turn away from the confederation, possibly bringing about a domino effect on other members.

"The KT union's departure has a symbolic meaning," said Choi Young-ki, research fellow at the Gyeonggi Research Institute, "because it reveals the KCTU failed in setting a proper policy direction and controlling its affiliated unions."

"If it doesn't seek reform to meet the changed labor situation, such a large-scale secession of its members will be repeated," he added.

And what about the members who ARE militant and are against cooperating with management? The KCTU IS the militant progressive federation of Korea; changing that would make it essentially another FKTU.

I doubt the recent secessions are caused solely by controversy over the KCTU's militancy. The KCTU did not just become a militant federation over night; its reputation has been established for years. Korean Unions have been hurting for years; these recent departures from both the KCTU and the FKTU are just symptoms of this. These unions are probably trying to find a new way to improve their status; whether it requires increased militancy or business cooperation. Remember when the Change To Win Federation pulled out of the AFL-CIO? Despite all the talk of "reform," Change To Win essentially worked the same way as the AFL-CIO with even greater internal strife.

There is no question that the KCTU needs some reforms; bureaucracy and infighting has made it ineffective in Ssangyong and the rampant patriarchy in the federation needs to be destroyed. Changing the one thing that defines the KCTU though will not solve anything.