Please respond to one or more of the following (or provide a response to a prompt of your own making):
2. Respond to the following excerpt from a May 1891 petition by the Greater Japanese Association to bar the exportation of sex workers from Japan (Ichioka, 16):
"These women are a blot on our national image and national morality...The reasons for the ban on Chinese immigration and the call for the expulsion of the Chinese were many and varied, but the main one was that Chinese women were prostitutes...It is evident that, if this notorious vice spreads, America will adopt measures against us in the same manner as she did formerly against the Chinese."3. How might one consider these readings in the context of previous readings and topics--or broadly speaking, in the context of "queering Asian America"?
Finally, we will be discussing the role of the facilitator as well as the instructor in class on Wednesday, so it would be a good idea to start reflecting on how you might define these roles for next year's syllabus.
1) At times, I found the way the authors used these stories to be quite uncomfortable. In the Goldberg article in particular, the way Na is represented seems intended to titillate the reader as much as to educate: "as she described [what happened to her] in the downtown Manhattan office of the immigration agents who helped save her, her head drooped in shame, and she doodled unconsciously right on the Government tabletop." We are presented with her shame and psychological trauma in an almost Law and Order-esque manner - she is rendered a caricature, a "victim" archetype. I am aware of the writer's proverb "show, don't tell," but sometimes, telling can be more respectful than showing. This story is first and foremost Na's story - not Goldberg's - and while giving all the "juicy details" of the damage done to her by the violence she has experienced may make for a "good read," it really does nothing to further the reader's understanding of the topic or their connection to the article - it only exploits.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, this is creepy: "But still, when she thinks back on her time in the brothel, the lilting syllables of her Thai speech fill with unaccustomed rage." That last part is so incredibly patronizing, so diminishing of her voice. It is entirely reliant on ideas of Asian women as passive, as objects. "The lilting syllables of her Thai speech" could easily just be written as "her voice." It's also unclear if the "unaccustomed rage" refers to Na's specific general affect, or the author's ideas of the general affect of Thai women.
The Rosen article was a little off-putting at times with the constant use of the term "hooker," but felt less intended to titillate than the Goldberg article.
While the connections between these readings and the larger context of "queering Asian America" were not immediately apparent to me, there is something to be said regarding how these texts dislocate Asian America as a stable or locatable entity. These exposes on the globalized trafficking of Asian women reminds us that Asian America is, in fact, international in scope. Transnationalism as both a conceptual force and a lived reality could be argued to queer Asian America as being singularly "American" at all; the divisions between what are considered Asian American versus Asian issues collapse into an overwhelming gray area of perpetual Asian-American exchanges.
ReplyDeleteWhile the readings burst Asian America by situating it within an interconnected global context, the singular representations of Asian women in these texts repudiate the process of queering Asian America. The texts, particularly the Goldberg article, sensationalize and enforce dominant archetypes surrounding Asian transnationals. As Zach touches on above, Goldberg's focus on language--and the author's particular attention to accents and broken or non-native English speaking--participates in a discourse that attributes power to language proficiency. The "happily ever after" story that Goldberg mentions even frames success as a product of heterosexual marriage and stability; Na's story effectively ends as she is shuttled into another kind of economy that regulates female bodies, albeit in a much different way.
Overall, I am left ambivalent as to what extent these readings seek to queer Asian America. Although a consciousness of female prostitution and global human trafficking expands dominant representations of Asian America, the authors of these pieces also feed a stereotyped, fixed, and disempowered portrayals of Asian women. As images injected into a media industry, these articles flux between being somewhat productive and also intensely problematic.
I have to say I actually did not like the way either article handled the stories of the women. The article by Carey Goldberg, about Na, annoyed me more than the other article in the way he choose to portray her personality. She wrote of her interest in a high paying job so she could wear pretty clothes instead of working at her parents’ grocery store, her “lilting English,” her doodling on the desk of a “Government tabletop,” and her life now as a sort of fairytale happily ever after ending. Goldberg begins the story with her and ends the story with her but does not really include her in the rest. The way the author describes her belittles her and does not take the time to present her strength in having gone through the experience or for having testified about brothel. I did not like part where Goldberg writes about how the authorities also questioned whether Na had known she was coming to America to be a prostitute. Goldberg also quotes Kathleen Barry’s opinion on how there are examples of everything that goes into the sex industry in the case, but does not then take the opportunity to show them to us. The rest of the article spent time on the case and gave almost as much space to the madam and the bouncer. Goldberg also described how Na, when relating her experience to the immigration officers “who helped save her,” drooped her head in shame, but fails to note that while shame may be an emotion she is feeling, she should not be shamed.
ReplyDeleteThe article by David Rosen immediately confused me in the first paragraph with his addition on the film “Pretty Woman.” Why does he ask if the “four dead prostitutes” had ever seen the film? What was the point in asking that? The callousness I did not like was the way he just stated facts, like his attitude towards the number of woman that face this fate, or the number of woman with the same life story, or the number of women and girls trafficked. The article jumps around a little too much, between the lives and deaths of Molly Jean Dilts, Tracy Ann Roberts, Kimberly Raffo, and Barbara Breidor, to the happy hooker myth, history of prostitution, Nevada’s legal whorehouses, sex trafficking, noncommercial sex (through- internet, phone and newspaper), crime, and finally a parallel murder case in the UK. I was interested in most of these issues individually but Rosen could not properly give the topics the time and care they deserved, making them become paragraphs of facts and anecdotes. Overall the two articles did not really seem to care about the lives of the women they were writing about, but instead used them as a way to start and end their articles with a specific person or persons.
I feel as if neither article portrays the women as having any agency with their decision. The NYT article very much portrays Na as an innocent victim who deserves to be rescued by the State, implicitly opposed to all those "bad" sex workers who make a choice, if not always an unconstrained one. It is telling that that many of the women feel forced to claim that they did not know they were being trafficked for sex work, as such knowledge would change how the State reacted to them. I also find it questionable how the article deploys immigration services as rescuers of trafficked women when immigration policies and police have had such a damaging effect on women in other areas.
ReplyDeleteThe counterpunch article did a better job of placing trafficking and sex work within the context of globalization and capitalist exchange, but I was disturbed by much of the language use in the article, and found the deployment of sex workers' murders still used as a means of judging sex work. The article appeared to be saying that a cruel society forced these women into this position, and no women would willingly choose sex work. I agree that the distinction between sex work out of economic necessity and the kind of privileged women who engage elite clientale is a false one, but the article still appears to deny agency to both. The lack of sex workers' voices in both stories is disturbing and fails to provide alternative viewpoints.
I agree with Candace that human trafficking and sex work complicates pictures of an "Asian America" when we look at what women are being desired by Western men and how gendered representations of Asian women play into global trafficking in even more overt ways than the media we have been looking at.
How are certain experiences overlooked or downplayed in these articles?
ReplyDeleteThe Dvid Rose article on trafficking gives a figure for the total number of people trafficked each year, followed by the percentage of those that are women. If you do the math, you will notice that approximately 120,000 men and boys are trafficked every year. The article then moves on to AAMPs and the fate of illegally trafficked women in the United States. I can't help but feel a similar response to the framing of the Holocaust as a Jewish tragedy; while approx. 6 million Jewish people did die, about 5 million others died. It seems that we conceive of these events best when we have a singular group to portray as the victims, in this case women, and overwhelmingly women from East Asia.
In the beginning of the Goldberg article on Sex Slavery, we encounter a 23 year-old Thai girl "dreaming of an office job that would let her wear pretty clothes." Regardless of whether or not this is what she said, it still reduces this woman to little more than a China Doll, and a young one at that, hoping for simple things like "pretty clothes." Throughout the article, there are references to their "broken English" and "lilting syllables of her Thai speech." Again, while these may be facts, the constant reminder of Otherness as designated by speech helps us remember that these women are, in fact, the Other. These are not our prostitutes, they are Asian exports who don't fully comprehend the world they live in and are tricked like the simpletons they are into sexual slavery. A tragedy, yes, but one that we are allowed to distance. The happy ending presented is that of a patron at a Thai restaurant falling in love with the woman, leading to their marriage and her citizenship. Again, it's hard to believe that it was really that simple.
Both of these article only throw back part of the curtain, and what they do expose they put a lens on, one which diminishes certain aspects of the experience which are, in some cases, the most upsetting.
1)
ReplyDeleteMy biggest gripe with these articles (but mostly Rosen) is their use of disaster porn. In the Rosen article, he focuses on these horror stories and acts as if there really is so much glamorization of prostitution. The stigma attached to prostitution has been around since prostitution itself began, so I really don't think anyone gets into such a business with the idea that Richard Gear will sweep her off her feet. I also don't think that the death of these four prostitutes is indicative of the outcome of prostitution on a whole. Furthermore, Rosen argues that these murders deserve more media coverage. However, so many heinous crimes don't get the media coverage they deserve so I just find this to be an irrelevant argument.
Disaster porn is mean to galvanize people into supporting certain positions. However, when you put so much emphasis on such a small facet of prostitution, you gloss over a lot of other stuff. Starting off his article with such heinous stories of these prostitutes, Rosen immediately distracts the reader and prevents him/her from a holistic view. I agree with Quinn in that I think both articles do a poor job in providing alternate views of these stories. But these are articles and not academic papers so I guess such bias is predictable. Their intent is not to give the holistic view that I think everyone is searching for.
Although I recognize the racially tense environment between white Americans and Asian immigrants in late 19th century United States—and somewhat understand the motivation behind this excerpt—the May 1891 petition does disturb me for two fundamental reason.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the two implicit prescriptions of nationalism contradict one another. While the Japanese petitioners desire to preserve the pristine image of Japan, they also wish to stay Americans, implying they also associate with the United States. I agree that the former leads to the latter, but their nationalism for Japan and for America is confusing. This is especially emphasized when I juxtapose it against anti-Chinese sentiment by the Japanese. In fact, I believe that the petition demonizes Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans: “Do This or We Are Like the Chinese!” Ultimately, I am critical of nationalism and the values with which it associates, and this petition promotes just that.
Second, although prostitution (both supplies and clientele) is not gender specific, I do believe that the excerpt wholly blames women for the vices of prostitution. Indeed, the petition itself writes against “Chinese women.” The implications of this belief are incorrect at best, and dangerous for Asian women in the United States. In fact, I wonder whether the contemporary stereotype of the “dragon lady” is a remnant of past Asian women in prostitution.
I would like to briefly amend my comment, adding that I think the happy ending marriage was potentially fueled by legal immigration status and class structure.
ReplyDelete2.
ReplyDeleteContinuing off what Johnny said about the excerpt wholly blaming women, their statement completely ignores the reasons why Asian women got into prostitution in the first place. They don’t factor in the lack of available job opportunities for women back then because they weren’t seen as fit for all of the manual labor going on, and they don’t acknowledge that the unbalanced men/women ratio for both the Chinese and Japanese contributes to the clientele of prostitutes. It isn’t taken into consideration how many of these women were kidnapped and sold for these purposes or that they didn’t enter the country legally so are once again limited in what lines of work they can do. It’s sad to see this ethnically biased conflict when both groups are being demonized for the same thing. Before this I wasn’t really aware of the Chinese Japanese rivalry starting before World War II.
To provide context, let's look at how an organization such as the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) talks about human trafficking. The anti-trafficking activist's agenda include these incredibly important guidelines:
ReplyDelete~Be grounded in a critical analysis of the root causes of violence and exploitation relative to race, gender and class and of the "risk factors" or layers of vulnerabilities imposed by social, political and economic structures
~Advocate for the self-determination and self-sufficiency of trafficked survivors and strive to develop their leadership as advocates
~Support enforcement against traffickers without increased criminalization of migrants or increasing restrictions on the (im)migration process
~Address, implicitly or expressly, the root causes of trafficking, namely globalization (poverty, lack of economic opportunities and lack of education, etc.) and its impact on trafficked survivors.
~Stay focused on survivors' and women's human rights and decision-making within their social, cultural, economic and political context to avoid the politicization and moralization of human trafficking.
(see more and read a great report here: http://napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/AT_Agenda.pdf)
Sooooo representations need to consider intersections between race, gender and class. Without grappling with larger structures of power, we will just get these superficial, atrocious depictions. We need to work with, not dehumanize survivors.
My concrete takeaway from our readings is the importance employing a transnational lens, especially while looking at the Global South and understanding what drives immigration.
How do you talk about Asian American prostitution and globalization of human trafficking and prostitution? I would look also at other forms of exploitative relationships include trafficking such as sweatshop and farm labor, coerced marriags in bride trafficking. In addition, as NAPAWF does I would also urge us to consider the intersections of labor, immigration rights, reproductive justice, and anti-violence work all in the context of globalization, poverty, and inequity.
Oops i accidentally deleted the first part of my comment...mostly talking about how dehumanizing and exploitative these articles are. Also why are our "good" voices police and INS? I would recommend exploring how state-sponsored law enforcement violence hurts exploited communities (see INCITE! http://www.incite-national.org/index.php?s=52)
ReplyDelete2.) I really feel this particular quote highlights what exactly was wrong (and honestly, still is) wrong with American society. Honestly, I cannot blame the Greater Japanese Association for being paranoid as hell about having to go through what the Chinese did when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. However, I believe this all stems from America's extremely conservative attitude at the time. Clearly, America liked to act like it was a holy country with no prostitutes at all (when in reality we all know that was quite the opposite.)
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, I would say America was going as far to rid the world of "crime" when in fact America itself is a playground for such crime (such as now with nuclear weapons, trying to police the world for them while in fact America is loaded with them.)
Meanwhile, on the Japanese side, I truly feel horrible for these women. After reading Ameyuki and seeing how these women were tricked and deceived...it's just a sad state of affairs. And to make it worse, it all came from a desire for money. The example of Na in the other piece only makes it more clear that not much has changed either.
However, as someone with a lot of "escort" friends, not all prostitution stories are bad, and really in my experience it has been a very economic thing. Someone has an itch they need scratched, and they pay to get that taken care of. However, that is just what I know about the gay community in Los Angeles, so I am sure it is different in other areas, especially when someone from a foreign country is illegally brought to America to be a prostitute.