In Summer of Bruce, Vijay Prashad presents Bruce Lee's films as points of intersection between Asian American and Black struggles against structural racism and oppression. His picture of inter-ethnic solidarity and "polyculturalism" is a striking contrast to the images of violence between Blacks and Korean Americans during the 1992 LA riots.
- What is responsible for the apparent disconnect between these two accounts?
- What role did the mainstream (read White) media play in shaping popular perceptions of inter-ethnic violence in 1992?
- Does the mainstream media have any responsibility for creating divides between two communities that both face structural oppression?
- To what extent do Abelmann, Lie and Prashad deconstruct the model minority myth and myths of Black/Asian American conflicts?
The first question is an interesting one... I don't think I have a direct single answer for it, but I do have one idea that probably does not stand on its own--ie, there are multiple reasons for it--this is just one. I think that the difference in the two images between Black Americans and Asian Americans could come from the idea of the individual and the community. When we talked about the LA Riots in some of my other classes, it was always mentioned in studies that the Korean Americans in that area of LA interacted with Blacks on a daily basis. Many of the Korean American shop owners/workers had Black friends, and Black customers with whom they got along perfectly fine with. When interviewed, most Korean Americans stated that although they had a couple of Black friends and customers who they had no problem with, as whole however, they did not "like" the Black community. As a whole, they believed that Blacks were not trustworthy, and could rob their stores at any minute, despite the select Black friends they trused. Studies/interviews with the Blacks in LA at that time showed similar results. Blacks had Korean American friends here and there, but as whole, they did not like Korean Americans, as they believed that the Korean Americans got extra help from the government, and were seen as the "better" minority in the whole racial triangular of Whites, Asians, then Blacks. Thus what we see in the LA Riots, is a reflection of what either community sees in the other, whereas what we see in films (like Jackie Chan's Rush Hour for example) is highly individualistic, focusing on just a few very specific characters, and not on both communities as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWe could probably get a better idea of how the mainstream media portrayed the events in 1992 by simply youtubing a couple of news reports from that time. Again, the mainstream (White) media played a huge part in this racial triangulation, or this scapegoating to create a racial hierarchy. Though one of the events that triggered the LA Riots was the beating of Rodney King, a conflict involving white police officers, the footage of the shooting of Latasha Harlins practically made Blacks forget about their conflict with Whites, and instead, turned the conflict towards Korean Americans. Racial triangulation involves making Asian Americans the "in-the-middle" race, pushing conflicts into the middle, which is one result of the mainstream media portrayal of the LA Riots.
I would like to comment on Q #3. The goal of mainstream media is to gain profit. As such, it is inevitable that mainstream media often emphasizes on certain areas of the news while downplays the others. Do I think it has any responsibility for creating divides between Korean Americans and African Americans during the 1992 riots? My answer is Yes. The media manipulated the audience and created conflicts. The social issues that the 1992 riots touched upon (ethnic conflict, urban poverty, immigration, and multiculturalism) still exist today and there are still debates over race, class, and culture. One reason is because our mainstream media still stereotypes Asian American and misrepresent Asian American culture. You would think that we should know better by now and not to be misled by the media. However, race, class, and culture are very complex issues and it is easy for us to believe what we hear/read/watch if we do not question the sources. It is good that Abelmann and Lie try to give Korean Americans a human face in the book, “Blue Dreams," so that we can understand the lives and hear the voices of Korean American.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the media, the L.A. Riots, and Korean Americans, I found this quote interesting: "The broadcasting images of the multiethnic riot featured Korean Americans in unexpected places and in surprising poses" (405). I asked myself, why should these images and poses be so surprising or out of the ordinary? Aka Korean Americans with guns as opposed to other ethnic groups or white people.
ReplyDeleteThe authors say these images "overturn" stereotypes of them as meek and diffident. I think this notion is problematic. Why does violence or guns have to be associated only with a certain race, or a certain group of people? All ethnicities and groups have violent and gun-toting individuals.
I think more realistically these images were "surprising" because the public had not really seen Korean American or any Asian Americans really on the news. Not only was there one Korean American they were seeing on the news or one family, but a huge community. The authors say, "Indeed, the very existence, of Koreatown must have been news for some viewers" (405). If this was the first time a viewer was seeing this large community, and it the image was revolving around violence, grimaced faces, and guns, this is problematic.
For anyone without first-hand or second-hand information about what was going on, the media played a huge shaping role in their entire perception and understanding of the violence. The media is most people’s primary source of ‘reliable’ and ‘unbiased’ information, and the bias and selective coverage mainstream media provides sets the tone for how the wider public understands what is going on. Mainstream media can definitely also play a role in dividing communities and egging on conflict.
ReplyDelete