Asians do not have "slanted" eyes.

I have dealt with comments such as this throughout my childhood while growing up in a semi-metropolitan area in Northern N.J., but in my nine years of being in the Bay Area, have never really encountered the sort of comment that my co-worker made the other day that had me quite riled up.

This woman, ordinarily a really nice woman, keeps telling people that she has "slanted eyes like those Asians", b/c Genghis Khan raped her ancestors and so she has Asian blood.

Where to begin my rebuttal/rebuke. . .

First of all, I have asked a bunch of people at work about whether this woman looks "Asian" at all, and there seems to be unanimous consent that she doesn't look the least bit Asian.

Second, I thought Genghis Khan only made it to around Russia, but assuming he or his descendants made it to Switzerland or thereabouts, this was in the 13th century. 800 years ago. Now, perhaps, it's very possible to lose all other Asian features but have this one feature remain over the course of 800 years, but I find it highly suspicious that someone can have "slanted eyes", just because back in 1200, one of their ancestors was raped by Genghis Khan. Sometimes, it is even difficult to discern "Asian" features in someone who is one-eighth Asian.

Third, there are many studies out there that suggest that Genghis Khan may not have been a mongoloid.

And most importantly, we do not have slanted eyes. Back in the early 80s, maybe to some ignoramuses (such as my high school classmates), we had slanted eyes. At the turn of the century, we had slanted eyes, and during World War II, we were yellow and had slanted eyes, but come on lady. This is the 21st century. Actually, we never really had "slanted" eyes in the past either.

Let's be precise here. We have epicanthic folds, and perhaps smaller eyes, hidden eyelids, or "almond-shaped" eyes, but my eyes are neither slanted nor mere slits. They are straight like Caucasian eyes. They are not at an angle, as portrayed by many cartoons, which cause people to think that the proper word to describe our type of eyes as "slanted".

This woman's comment wouldn't piss me off so much if she didn't act like this was a defect. In fact, she said she had eye surgery done to "fix" this, as if this were a problem that needed fixing.

Thanks to the pervasiveness of mentalities such as hers, I've spent most of my childhood and part of my adulthood thinking that these epicanthic folds and my "flat nose" are ugly. I never learned to see Asians as pretty or in the case of men, handsome, probably until these last 10 or 12 years of my life.

Whereas this was unfortunately a ubiquitous attitude in the east coast, thankfully, here in the Bay Area, this attitude is almost non-existent, but every once in a while, I meet people like this and wonder-- damnit, are these people here--underneath their shroud of multiculturalism and tolerance and all that kumbaya stuff--actually no different from people from my home town?

Oh, and btw, on a similar note, I really don't need to be told that so-and-so is black, but is smart. (What do you mean but?) I know that you're saying this to be complimentary and respectful to so-and-so, who is black, but it's really not at all complimentary. Think about it. You would never make qualifying statements like that about caucasian people. Why do people automatically assume that we are going to think that someone isn't smart just because of their race?

Why sixty degrees?

Chocolate--it is probably among my top five favorite foods, but. . .

they didn't perfect it quite enough, imo. The only thing I have to complain about this otherwise divine creation (well, ok, other than the fact that one can't stuff oneself silly with it and not gain weight. . .) is the utterly impractical ideal storage temperature it demands: 60 degrees (F). Neither room temperature nor fridge temperature, but vexingly and elusively betwixt these two.

How about 70 degrees, or better yet, 68 degrees? That is room temperature. My apartment, which is on the second floor, may be 68 degrees on a cool day, but hardly ever 60 degrees. Actually, in the winter, I think it may be this cold. But even then, it's usually more like 63 or 65 degrees. In the summer time, however, it may get as high as high 80s or low 90s, and perhaps even hotter on the warmest days. Thus my bar of dark chocolate is banished to the fridge, where the temperature is not 60 degrees either, and where one is not really supposed to store chocolate, if one is a true chocolate afficionado.

You would think that given where cacao beans are grown, and considering the climates of civilizations where cocoa was first used/consumed, that chocolate would be more conducive to storing at higher and more reasonable temperature ranges. Didn't the Aztecs and Mayans live in subtropical climates? (Granted, they used the cacao beans in an entirely different way than we do, and it was actually the Europeans who tweaked this product to make it sweet. . ..)

I wonder if it is coincidence that red wine, which goes splendidly with chocolate, also has similarly impossible "ideal" storage temperatures--as does cheese (which doesn't go as splendidly with chocolate, but goes splendidly with wines, or by itself).

The fine line between academics and propaganda

There really shouldn't be a fine line between academic research and propaganda, but every once in a while, I read something that starts out sounding seemingly scholarly, and then get to the punch line and wonder whether it is actually propaganda.

Take Japan Focus for example. Its articles are posted in serious academic newsgroups. The subjects are academic. I often recognize at least some of the contributors. The list of associates are all reputable people. All of these traits point to the makings of a solidly credentialed scholarly journal, which for the most part, I think this journal is. Although I have read some articles I did not agree with, I have also read some insightful ones.

I don't read all of the articles, but the one that struck my eye this week was an article about Japan's and China's oil activities in Africa.

The article started out neutral enough-- comparing the two countries recent pursuits for fossil fuels in Africa and some background info about the consumption/production of oil for each country.

It then goes into an explanation of recent deals Japan has made with countries in Africa-- Libya, Ivory Coast, Egypt, and Congo. (At this point, I start to wonder about the ethicality of oil attained from potentially war-ravaged countries or countries that are politically unstable, but I confess that other than keeping relatively abreast of current events, etc., I do not know too much about individual African countries, and sometimes lose track of which country is or was in a civil war.)

It also mentions countries that China is pursuing deals with--Nigeria, Angola, among others.

The article carries on like this--comparing the two countries and expounding on some of the key oil deals.

It was mostly fine until I got to this paragraph: "China does not seem to be fussy about where its oil comes from. It gets oil in Sudan, for example, despite the international uproar over the Darfur crisis. To be sure, Japan won concession rights for oil and gas in Sudan in June last year. But the winner, Systems International Group, is a company newly established by a Japanese non-governmental organization, Reliance. It plans to use the profit from oil development in eastern Sudan to finance humanitarian support in Africa."

Hmm. A negative statement about China. Do I detect a bias? It doesn't help that the author is Japanese. Furthermore, Japan isn't exactly dealing with model nations in Africa either, so who is he to point fingers? However, I continue on, willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. Perhaps he is an expert on this topic.

Then I get to this penultimate paragraph: "Unlike China, Japan, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy in Asia, cannot turn a blind eye to poor records on democracy and human rights in many African countries. Japan has applied strict criteria for aid provision to developing countries in Asia, Africa and elsewhere in the world, with democracy and human-rights protection as basic conditions." (emphasis mine)

I stalled for a moment on "Japan, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy in Asia". Ok, perhaps more than a moment, since I'm taking the trouble to blog about this questionable phrase.

Who the heck--other than wartime propagandists--in this day and age would dare to refer to Japan as a "self-proclaimed champion of democracy in Asia"? Does Hisane Masaki actually believe that Japan is a "self-proclaimed champion of democracy in Asia"? Surely, he must know the implications of making such an assertion. Even if this happened to be true today, given Japan's history, it's really stupid to make a statement such as this in an article that criticizes China's lack of concern for human rights.

Appalled by this statement, I googled him to find out more about him and found this page, which also lists more articles by him. His credentials seem solid enough; he has worked long enough in international journalism, that one would expect him to be culturally sensitive and understand the implications of calling Japan a "self-proclaimed champion of democracy" --in Asia of all places.

Of course, it is possible that he sincerely believes this. However, if that is the case, given Japan's history in Asia, he really ought to qualify what he means by this loaded phrase. Perhaps he means that Japan is the highest contributor of humanitarian aid in Asia. (note: I don't actually know this; I'm just proposing possible scenarios of what he meant.) But then, wouldn't it be less ambiguous to just say that instead?

It's amazing how one phrase can shatter the credibility of an expert. I was ready to dismiss this article as an "informative but biased piece" on China and Japan's oil pursuits in Africa, but with this one phrase, it reads more like a propaganda/PR ad for one of these oil companies.

While I understand the idea of intellectual freedom and the importance of reading viewpoints that are contrary to one's own, reading something like this that treads a very fine line between scholarly and propagandistic made me question the editorial discretion of this journal.