Of all that we've discussed surrounding "American Born Chinese," I keep returning to Yang's question, "Does acknowledging a stereotype perpetuate it?" As Yang points out, Chin Kee--the most in-your-face stereotype used--was a tool to further his underlying morals and themes. "I wouldn't have introduced him if I weren't going to behead him," he explains. The shock value was intentional, and effective. It served its purpose. But once a character is created, there is the potential for him to be misused, taken out of context.
So how should stereotypes be addressed? It seems to me that the obvious answer is that it is better to proclaim ownership of the stereotypes, as Yang as done, and turn them with the purpose of creating awareness. But how many people learn from the reclaimed stereotype, and how many only see the "pee-pee in your coke" joke they learned as elementary school students? Will the number of people reading A.B.C. outweigh the tide of people who simply see Chin Kee, or one of his many alter egos in Oliphant's cartoon or cartoons or John Hughes-land?
I think the solution is already being undertaken--considering A.B.C. a young adult book, and making an audience from a generation full of children who are still forming concepts of identity, both for themselves--claiming their own cultures--and for the world at large. Kids learn early on the power of name-calling--it is only logical to teach the power of the "name" itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment