Author Archives: Cassie Del Rosario

1. In “Apu’s Brown Voice: Cultural Inflection and South Asian Accents”, Dave argues that accent is a reinforcing vehicle of cultural image that ultimately limits South Asians and their status within American society as merely cultural citizens. With India’s history of British rule, the author argues that learning the English language as a result of that influence, although accented, has granted South Asian people a privileged position within the English-speaking world when compared to other minorities’ more commonly limited English. However, this fluent, accented English also keeps South Asians from being true British citizens due to its potential to be understood as mimicry. As the only popular South Asian representation in the U.S., Dave argues that The Simpsons’ character, Apu, and “brown voice” muddles the racial as well as cultural diversity of South Asian people into a singular voice and unclear background.
2. As “the growth of radio stations and the public practice of listening to the radio emerged during the national debates over naturalization and immigration laws in the 1920s”, Dave explains the historical context that made voice become influential in determining how different voices were received by the public especially when associated with ethnic identities (Dave 319). By broadcasting one kind of voice over the national radio, the radio began to establish what voices sounded American and what didn’t, setting the foreground for different accents being distinguished as “foreign”: “…the linguistic unity fostered by national American radio influenced the perception and judgment value of voices that deviated from what was considered the national norm” (Dave 319). As South Asian accents sound considerably similar to British English, Dave claims that accent denotes a privileged position of South Asians when compared to the more commonly limited English of model minorities. Yet, South Asian’s British English can be considered a form of mimicry through which their fluency in a western language did not grant them full, tangible citizenship: “…mimicry also exposes the flaws in the British imperial project because the Indian can never truly be a British citizen. If he or she were, the empire could not maintain the hierarchies on which it was built” (Dave 328). Despite Apu’s success as a South Asian on and off-screen, “…the Indian American community debates vacillate between whether Apu’s popularity and presence in the show is a sign of Indians making it in the United States or whether Apu’s success reinforce Indian immigrant stereotypes and limits all future Indian characters to Apu-like roles” (Dave 323). By including the Indian American community’s own perception of Apu, Dave illustrates how their ambivalence of Apu resembles their own uncertain position in the U.S. Through the show’s creators’ own ignorance of South Asian diversity including the voice of Apu himself: “…like Azaria cannot distinguish between India…and Pakistan…”, Dave points out that the voice that Apu gives to South Asians is limited in representation (Dave 324). Just as South Asians’ acquisition of British English maintained an included yet excluded position within the British Empire, “brown voice” is another example of language and speech as a means of enforcing power relations within the U.S.: “Simultaneously, the practice of brown voice ensures that although Indians are striving for cultural citizenship, the nature of the accent will always be read as foreign and the racial hierarchies of the United States will remain intact” (Dave 327).
3. In the reading, Dave introduces the term “brown voice” that: “…identifies a specific racializing trait among South Asians which simultaneously connotes foreignness and class and cultural privilege” (Dave 314). Another definition of “brown voice” is simply speaking in the accents known to be native to South Asian people. Dave speaks of “brown voice” as a performative experience that involves performer and receiver (Dave 317). Dave also references the term cultural incompetence: “Hilmes writes: ‘One signification of cultural incompetence involves language use and ‘funny accents’…” through which racial difference is expressed and signified (Dave 320). Often associated with non-whites, cultural incompetence reflects a person’s inability not only to speak English fluently but to not have full access to a culture that thorough language proficiency can provide.  The concept of mimicry: “…Bhabha explains, employs both ‘resemblance and menace’”, a term Dave references to illustrate the tensions for English-speaking South Asians (Dave 328). Dave mentions British colonial mimicry specifically as a way for the British to spread their influence while also maintaining their position of power over South Asians: “British colonial mimicry is about the native adopting the habits and mannerisms of the colonizer or in this case the Indian becoming the perfect British citizen” (Dave 328).
4. The connecting ideas of assimilation and the model minority are both referenced in Dave’s writing. Dave talks about how accented speech is a “…satire of ethnic assimilation” (Dave 315). The idea of assimilation as well as the hybridized identity of Asian-American finds resemblance in the identity of English Indians who were believed to be “…the hybrid of the best in Indian and British culture” (Dave 328). However, despite embodying and revering British values, becoming a full-fledged British citizen was a never fully reachable position, a struggle reminiscent of Asian Americans’ trying to find their own accepted identity within the U.S. (Dave 328). In The Simpsons’: “As a result of the fame and singularity of his character, Apu emerges as a highly politicized representation of a Hindu from India who fulfills the ‘model minority’ stereotype of success through tolerance and hard work” (Dave 323). Although Apu is considered as “making it” as an individual, his accent reduces him to his ethnic identity in spite of his accomplishments.

References

Shilpa Dave. “Apu’s Brown Voice.” East Main Street: Asian American popular culture, edited by Shilpa Davé, LeiLani Nishime, and Tasha G. Oren. New York : New York University Press, c2005. (313-331)

1. In “If we are Asian, then are we funny?”: Margaret Cho’s All-American Girl as the First (and Last?) Asian American Sitcom”, Cassinelli argues that despite All-American Girl as a well-intentioned step in the direction of representation, the sitcom was ultimately unsuccessful due to the failure of accurately depicting a “real” Asian-American family, its troublesome title, as well as due to the shortcomings of television broadcasting as both a pervasive medium and powerful institution that controls the portrayal of images. Cassinelli also talks about the potential of the performative nature of culture/ethnicity to be perceived and understood as acts of inauthenticity, especially when viewed and translated through the television screen.
2. As TV’s first Asian American family, the producers at the studio were especially concerned with making the family’s culture known to the audience as both a first in entertainment as well as to signify why the series was unique in story and casting. However, the producers, etc. were so preoccupied with this that all the show’s content became about portraying race: “The show’s attempt to create ‘authentic Asianness,’ means the audience is not given enough non-racial material to create a relationship with the characters” (Cassinelli 132). As the show strived to make the characters seem so Asian, the material was instantly racialized and the characters were perceived and judged through an ethnic lens contrasted with the nationality that the title promised. Cassinelli talks about how the show’s title itself sets up the audience members to be especially critical of the portrayal of what it means to be American: “It is as though the show’s producers and writers were asking for critics and audience members to look for and point out the troubling aspects of both American and Asian authenticity within the show” (Cassinelli 134). In trying to be an authentic Asian family, the TV family’s identification as an American family was negated as the audience could not believe that the two identities coexisted together. Throughout her argument, Cassinelli pulls from Cho’s own reflections about her experience of working on the show. When thinking about: “…the show’s objective for ‘wholesomeness,’ Cho reassigns the responsibility onto the show’s producers, writers, and executives at ABC and Disney” (Cassinelli 135). Although Cho was supposed to be playing herself on TV, the powerful people of the studios had the final say in how the Asian American family was to be portrayed through the script and most notably, through their criticism of Cho’s weight. This speaks to the bigger institution of the media as a dictator of image, ranging from how ethnicity is portrayed to the image of an individual actor. This problem of portrayal is made evident in an episode of the series in which Cho’s character tries to be traditionally “Asian” for a traditional Asian boy: “If the audience sees her as an Asian impostor, then it’s possible that Margaret Kim can be regarded an American impostor as well. With a slippery ethnic positioning, Cho’s character is vulnerable to multiple acts of imposture” (Cassinelli 136). Using this example, Cassinelli explains how this double performance – of Cho playing Margaret Kim who plays the part of a traditional Korean girl – makes both her character and identity untrustworthy.
3. In the reading, Cassinelli references the term, Asian American, explaining that two of the term’s defining characteristics include having an inconclusive definition as well as being a term that holds a lot of tension within itself. Asian American can be defined as people of Asian descent that reside or were born in the U.S. after immigration.  Cassinelli offers an attempt at definition: “As echoed by Tina Chen, ‘one of the defining characteristics of the public identity Asian Americans have been assigned is that of perpetual foreignness” (Cassinelli 135). Cassinelli also talks about the difference between imposture and impersonation, where an impostor seeks to deceive while an impersonator assumes an identity that is more widely assumed and understood by the public (Cassinelli 137). The term, model minority, is also referenced and demonstrated through Cho’s character’s brother due to his socioeconomic achievements in a western world despite his background (Cassinelli 138-139).
4. The show’s portrayal of Cho’s character, not just of an Asian person but of an Asian woman, misrepresents twofold. Cho’s “…performance of a subservient traditional Asian girl is dangerous” in that it perpetuates the sexist idea of how women should act around men they like in order to be accepted, even if that means abandoning their own beliefs or autonomy (Cassinelli 136). As subservience is often attributed to Asian women, the title of the episode itself “Submission: Impossible” points to this problematic depiction of an Asian female, especially as part of the first Asian American family on television.

1. In John Fong’s “Beyond Finishing the Game: A Look at Asian American Grassroots Outreach”, he makes the argument that grassroots marketing over traditional marketing is the most effective and main means by which Asian American media and its images are promoted, an approach that also reflects the group’s value of community. Fong also argues that it is important to support Asian American cinema in order to encourage more accurate representation, a role that the community plays a big part of.
2. Despite the grueling dedication required, Fong points out why the grassroots approach is necessary in the first place for Asian American cinema: “There are many barriers around ideas of access, but most lie at the highest levels, the companies that are reluctant to invest dollars in releasing a film in a market that they don’t know much about (ie: Asian America)” (Fong 3). As Asian American cinema is dedicated to disproving mainstream ideas of the model minority, they do not receive support from the mainstream industry itself. As a result, filmmakers have to fund projects through available resources – the grassroots approach allows filmmakers to do so with the help of the community. As advertising is in itself a costly venture, Long points out that: “Hollywood films have marketing budgets that would eclipse the entire production budget of most indies – getting the word out is an expensive thing to do. And most Asian American films are not flush with cash reserves” (Fong 3). In addition to not getting support from studios, the responsibility and necessity of promoting Asian American media projects falls on the creators themselves. Listing all the Asian American films that found success through this kind of promotion in his article, Fong further proves the effectiveness of grassroots campaigning through the historical example of another prominent historically discriminated group: “…the African American community has long used these strategies to show off their box office strength, to great success” (Fong 5). Using the specific example of Better Luck Tomorrow, Fong talks about: “…the importance of voting with one’s wallet at the box office to support Asian American cinema” (Fong 7). Grassroots outreach highlights a value of the Asian American community of coming together under the banner of a shared identity, solidified through collective efforts to support films representing those experiences.
3. In Long’s article, a grassroots campaign is described as a “labor-intensive approach”, done: “Via emails from film directors asking for support, campus visits, connections with community-based organizations, opening night parties, entire screenings bought out by employee groups, street teams, major on-line/social networking pushes and appearances by cast and crew” (Fong 4). Another way grassroots campaigning can be defined is as nontraditional means of reaching out to communities for support, whether by word-of-mouth or by being self-funded endeavors to attract audience members. Support can come from individuals as well as other organizations that support the vision and mission of the Asian American cinema. The more personal nature of grassroots campaigning emphasizes and depends on the contribution of community and teamwork.
4. As a prominent film industry, Hollywood’s reluctance to support Asian American films reflects the larger cultural problem of how mainstream ideas and stereotypes are reluctant to change such ideas. This is exemplified by how popular films advertised with big marketing, especially TV trailers, follow linear, predictable cliché -filled plots that appeal to audiences because of their familiarity and the associated enjoyment with that familiarity. Despite claiming unique stories and bearing individual titles, many of Hollywood’s films are predictable stereotypes in of themselves (e.g. the rom-com genre, the teen horror movie) that make money off the repeated and recycled use of tropes and stereotypes, further propagating those stereotypes within the public at the expense of the depicted groups but for the industry’s gain.

1) In the “The Cold War Origins of the Model Minority Myth”, Robert Lee argues that assimilation reflects the U.S.’s political agenda on a national and global scale as a way to maintain racial control as well as influence over other countries.

2) The U.S.’s political agenda is illustrated through the film Sayonara: “Sayonara establishes the anticommunist necessity of ethnic liberalism and presents the war bride as a model of ethnic assimilation” (Lee 162). By being more accepting of minorities through ethnic assimilation, Lee talks about how the U.S. hoped to minimize communism’s reach around the globe by providing an option that reflected the U.S.’s championed democratic values. Here, Lee discusses how the war bride serves as a concrete figure as well as tool in demonstrating the benefits of adopting a liberal approach. Lee also points out that the higher tolerance for Asians was due to a lower tolerance for blacks, as “…the writer of the U.S. News article described America’s Chinatowns as ‘havens for law and order’ and made no fewer than six references to low rates of delinquency among Chinese American youth”, reinforcing the title of model minority for Asians while also maintaining the systematic racism in the country against the progress of black citizens (Lee 151).

3) The author references the historical context of the terms: assimilation and the model minority, and how the two terms play off each other. Assimilation can be defined as being accepted as part of (white) American society despite a different ethnic/cultural background and origin. For Lee, assimilation can be defined as becoming American through the use of what the country produces: “Linda’s status as an All-American girl is measured by her clothes, perfume, jewelry, and cars, items that transform the Asian body into an American body. Mei Li is transformed into an American by television” (Lee 178). This example of assimilation from Flower Drum Song that Lee references demonstrates how assimilating into Western culture is (like many other cultural practices) performative – an on-going process that involves active participation. The consumption of American television speaks to that performance aspect of being influenced to carry out certain behaviors that the characters act out. The term model minority is typically used to describe well-adjusted Asians into American society who have assimilated successfully.

4) Lee’s discussion of the model minority lends itself to the stereotype of Asian and Asian American students expected to be model students. The model minority idea is so pervasive that it translates to how individual students are assumed to excel in every course. Through the expected hard work ethic necessary for such academic success and the consequential perceived potential for positive contribution to the public from such efforts, the model minority lives on through Asian students.