Hapa in Hawaii: Mixed Feelings

So, in my previous post (Hapa in Hawaii: Kumu Kahua), I covered how incredible it felt to be in Honolulu, surrounded by folks that actually looked like me, for one of the first (and only) times in my life. And - due to that - I kind of think of Hawaii as my adopted homeland in a lot of ways.*

But - being me - I wasn't able to just stop there and bathe in the warm glow of blending in. No - I had to go deeper. I had to really examine why this place existed - an island where a majority of the people resemble me, phenotypically-speaking.

And, of course, it comes down to history. Due to its position 3,000 miles from any continent (Asia, Australia, or Americas), Hawaii was able to avoid the earliest rushes of colonial expansion and empire. It wasn't until 1778 when white colonizers arrived on Hawaiian shores with Captain Cook.** Shortly thereafter, King Kamehameha I was able to unify the islands under his rule through a relatively quick war of conquest. Ironically, evidence suggests that Kamehameha was able to defeat his opponents largely due to his use of European guns and weaponry (brought by American and European traders).

A united Hawaii, in theory, should have led to furthering Hawaiian strength. Sadly, it was all downhill from there.

Over the course of the next 100 years, foreign interests (mostly white American businessmen) steadily gained a firmer foothold on the islands. By the mid-1800s, there were basically two opposing sources of power in Hawaii - the Hawaiian-run government that held political power and legal authority, and the American businessmen, who controlled Hawaiian economic power. We've seen this sad story a million times - so what happened next, when American capitalism and greed was pitted against an indigenous government?

Right. In 1893 U.S. marines landed and helped the American business interests (led by Sanford B. Dole, founder of the Dole fruit empire) overthrow the Hawaiian government. In 1895, Queen Lili'uokalani was arrested for treason when she attempted to regain power. Can I repeat that? The Queen of a previously-independent state was arrested for treason by American business interests when she tried to rule her previously-independent state. In 1898, President McKinley (I'm glad he was shot, but I should note here that Grover Cleveland - McKinley's predecessor - was actually opposed to annexation) signed the resolution of annexation to make Hawaii a U.S. territory. Notably, native Hawaiians weren't allowed to vote on the decision to petition for annexation. Upon joining the union, Sanford Dole became the first governor.

- Brief interruption - Dole becoming governor is like if Lee Scott, Jr. (Walmart CEO) took over the Phillipines and then the U.S. made him governor.*** Put that way, though - would you really be surprised if it actually happened?

Anyway. So - Hawaii was colonized by the U.S., had its freedom curtailed, and was forced to become part of the Union (without native Hawaiian input). Deep down, somewhere, everybody understands this, but let's just make it clear: Hawaii is a colony, plain and simple. And, just like with the U.S. mainland, it has never won its independence. The only difference being native Hawaiians are actually still visible and harder to ignore on the islands.

Okay - so where do all the Asian folk come in? Well, unfortunately for Dole and his buddies, Hawaiian annexation came 30 years after slavery was made illegal, so free labor wasn't available. So they did what American business interests have been doing for centuries (and continue to this day) - they found cheap immigrant labor to work under slave-like conditions. It's no coincidence that in 1865 - only two years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the year of the end of the Civil War and realization that the North had won - ships from Hawaii arrived in China to bring back plantation laborers.

By the early 1880s, 22% of the islands' population was Chinese. Enter the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1884. The Chinese well dried up as Chinese laborers were no longer allowed to come to the States. Suddenly, an influx of Japanese workers appeared on the scene. Then, when the Japanese island population became too large (and deemed a "threat" by white Americans), the Filipinos began to roll in. The first large wave of Korean immigration began around that same time.

So, by the early 1900s, Hawaii's ethnic demographics fell out like this: 24% "colored" (which would include Filipinos and other Asians, as well as black and other ethnicities), 23% white, 22% Native, 21% Japanese, and 8% Chinese (that Exclusion Act sure was effective). As far as the hierarchy went, you had the Asian laborers at the bottom with indigenous Hawaiians, and the white folks running the show at the top. So - as usually occurs with such distinct class divisions - some racial mixing began with the "lower" levels. Various Asian ethnicities began to mix (a little, there is still a lot of intra-Asian cultural hostility) with each other, as well as some mixing with native Hawaiians.

So - 100 years of racial mixing led to the racially-ambiguous look of the people living in Hawaii presently. Few with native blood aren't mixed to some degree.

But we're not finished yet. Because we still haven't explained the explosion of "hapas" that hit the islands some decades back.

Interestingly, along with the Asian laborers coming in at the beginning of the 20th century was a large population of Portuguese immigrant laborers. At that point, Portuguese wasn't white, they were on the same class-level with the rest of the laborers, and a large numbers of mixed folks in Hawaii with white blood have Portuguese ancestry.

But wait - there's more. Starting in the 1980s, Asian economies (specifically Japanese) began to gain momentum. And, with the increase in economic power of these Asian peoples came with their increase in political power (and levels of acceptance) in Hawaii. So, as Japanese (and some other Asians) began to mix, politically and socially, at the highest class levels, they also began to mix their bloodstreams. Et voila! The birth of the modern "hapa" movement.

Whoo! So here we are - present-day. "Hapa pride" is a catch-phrase, and the majority of mainland Americans think "Hawaiian" folks look like me. If we're talking about people living in the state of Hawaii, then that's true, of course. But if we're talking about indigenous Hawaiians? Not at all.

And so, after putting all these pieces together, I realized that my "blending in" as a hapa-haole in Hawaii is actually a consequence of racial privilege. The majority of the hapas on the islands come from a relatively privileged background in comparison to the indigenous Hawaiians. The only reason folks of my mixture exist in such large amounts on the islands is due to American colonization and Asian economic dominance.

So, really - my "look" is a symbolic representation of American empire and the rule of capitalism. My "blending in" in Hawaii served as a bridge for further connection from myself to native Hawaiian issues, but, in a way, I am a cause of those same issues.

What do I do with this knowledge? How does this affect my excitement at the opportunity to see people like me all over the place?

I'm not really sure. My first step is open acknowledgement of it. I'm not going to hide from it. I will examine it, deeply, and accept whatever I find. And then I'll share it. Through my writing on this blog, as well as artistically (I already performed a piece that addresses this). The second step is to allow myself to still appreciate my opportunity to be "normal" - no matter the historical significance of that. Being any kind of racial mixture is a remnant of cultural expansion and empire, and there's no avoiding it. In spite of how people with my particular phenotype came into existence, I still have the right to feel a sense of normality.

And, finally - I will continue to look for ways to rectify past wrongs. It isn't my fault that things are the way they are, but nor is it my subsequent right to allow things to remain that way. As a direct recipient of benefits wrought by privilege (however small and fleeting, in this case), it is my responsibility to do something.

And so I will. Because I refuse to hide in ignorance, no matter how soothing - even when it comes disguised as something I've longed for for so long.



* China being the "motherland," literally, but obviously not really my place. The mainland U.S. more or less the "fatherland," but - again - not fully my place in a lot of ways. My "homeland," then, being where both sides meet.

** At this point, y'all don't need me to explain why I qualify "white" explorers . . .

*** I use the Phillipines as an example, because their current state of being a quasi-U.S. colony with heavy military presence mirrors that of Hawaii before the overthrow . . .

On the Invention of Racism, Part II

Oh, what a way to start the party I referred to a couple days back. From the very beginning. Note to the upstairs party - make sure you read the full post before you let the way it all begins get you, because it was very intentional, and NOT because I hate white people.

For the first installment, see "On the Invention of Racism, Part I."

So, where did I leave off? Oh, right - what history really looked like before it got re-written.

I was talking about the fact that white Europeans were simply NOT superior - AT ALL - for most of the period of time we like to call "written history." In fact, if we were talking about technological and social advances, we'd have to call them plain inferior. To - pretty much - everyone else. Seriously.

And me writing that probably blows people's minds. Because that's not how our textbooks tell it. And isn't that just racist to say in the first place?

My response? I don't know - is it? Is it racist to state the simple fact that white Europeans literally swam in their own sh-- during much of the second millennium while civilizations of color in Africa, Asia, and the "American" continent practiced good hygiene? Is it racist to say that white Europeans in the 1300s were illiterate savages, in contrast to the highly-educated, scientifically-advanced Moors, or Mayans, or Sudanese, or Chinese, or . . . (you get the picture)? Is it racist to speak of the barbarism of white European colonists in contrast to the settled, civilized natives that they butchered? Is that racist? Because it really seems to me that that's what every single American child learned in school . . .

Oh, wait. No. My bad. They learned the opposite. Right. They (we) learned that white Europeans were the advanced ones, while everybody else was backwards. But that wasn't racist because it was true.

Except it wasn't.

No - it was only true after racism was invented. And institutionalized.

Because there was a time (through all these years of primitive European backwardness) when different races of people didn't exist. The concept of race didn't really exist. There was the acknowledgement of different skin color, of course. And of different places of origin and civilizations. But it wasn't about race. The differently-colored civilizations of the world traded with each other, took advantage of the advancements (and weaknesses) of the others, and lived in a relative state of peace with each other (and I specify "with each other," because they were obviously fighting amongst themselves - but more within the same racial groups than without).

And nobody was "superior." Sure, the Chinese have always thought themselves superior to everybody else, but nobody was actually superior in terms of dominance or advancement or anything else like that. One culture had their way of doing things, the other culture had their own way, and that was how it was.

So what caused superiority to happen? It started with wars of subjugation and slavery.

But most wars of subjugation through the majority of historical time were not between different races. No - they were one tribe or group from one race* taking over land or control of another tribe or group of the same race. And, with that, came slavery. Africans enslaved Africans. Indigenous Americans enslaved other Americans. And white Europeans enslaved other white Europeans. And wasn't it all so hunky-dory? No. But it wasn't about race, either.

Wars that happened between different races weren't about race, either. The major ones were about religion - Christians and Muslims during the Crusades. And neither side thought the other was inferior - simply wrong about God. And so it went until the Inquisition. And, at that point, race starts to appear in the picture - because, although it was ostensibly about religion - it fell out to start eliminating people of the wrong "look" or opinions (I believe this is where true anti-semitism really made its first major stand, the dark-skinned Moors were pushed from Europe, "witches" were persecuted, etc.) . . .

And then Columbus' terrorist attacks on the Americas began. As white Europeans gained control of the Americas (again, through brutality and plague), they gained wealth. Wealth in terms of gold and trinkets, but also in terms of manpower - SLAVES. Because the most slaves in the original Americas were not actually Africans - they were Native Americans. So many that there certainly wasn't a need for white slaves, anymore. But then the plague started wiping out the Natives, so the white Europeans, used to all the extra slave help to do their work, had to ship in African slaves to take their place.

And that's about when the invention of racism really began to take full shape. Because Columbus' initial reports on the natives he met were highly positive. Commenting on their regal physical appearance, their kindness, and their civilized culture. That was until he decided he would kill them and take over their land for "God and country." Then, suddenly, he started talking about their "savagery" and their uncivilized nature, likening them to animals.

Because the problem was this: how could a God-fearing Christian man kill off a whole race of kind, regal, and civilized people? He couldn't. Which presented two options: either, a) don't kill them and leave their land and resources, or b) change how you look at them, so you can feel okay about killing them all.

Guess what option Columbus went with?

And the rest followed suit. There are hundreds of accounts of "explorers" and "statesmen" initially having positive things to say about native peoples, only to do a complete 180 in opinion once they started profiting by killing them.

It was simply a matter of propaganda. If you can convince your people that the "enemy" is less than, then they will have no problem killing them. This kind of dehumanization during wartime has always occurred (and still does).

But it stopped happening only during wartime. Because the majority of slaves became black slaves. And - again - no God-fearing man or woman could whip another man or woman, split up their family, rape them, murder them, etc. No. But they could do all these things if they changed their mind about who those people were. In fact, changed their mind to not even make them people.

And so history had to be re-written. Because if the conquerors acknowledged the previous power (and superiority) of these peoples' civilizations, then how could they adequately justify their current actions? Again - they couldn't. So they - very intentionally - changed history to put white folks on top, from beginning to end. Suddenly, Europeans conquering and colonizing the world wasn't an act of epic brutality and fascist Empire - it was inevitable. It was the ever-constant march of progress. Something that nobody could stop.

They took the morals right out of the equation. And never put them back in. Think back to your history lessons of your childhood - how often was this battle presented as "more advanced" versus "less advanced"?** Manifest Destiny. Exploration. Africa became the "Dark Continent" as slavery reached its peak. None of this was a coincidence.

Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry - they all owned slaves. They had them beat. They broke up their families. They acknowledged the wrong of it all (in a way), but they continued it. Because that was how it was. Because it was easier to let it continue than to function without it.

But slavery did end (at least in the most literal, legal sense). And, afterwards, Reconstruction occurred. Black Americans were given full rights, put into positions of authority, sat in government. But it fell through. Not because the black folks were unable to handle the new way of things, but because white racists (which was the majority of white folks) were murdering black officials. They attacked entire towns. Burned the homes of the most successful black folks.

And suddenly the rights were revoked by the government. But they couldn't admit that it was because the white racists had won - of course not. So it got re-written as the newly-freed slaves being unable to handle authority. Being too uneducated to be successful. Because that story felt better for the authors.

And that story was so effective and became so ingrained, that few people today even realize that black people actually served in government and had legal equality any time before the Civil Rights movements of the 60s. We're taught to believe that things have steadily been getting better. That the racist institution of segregation had to bow to the "inevitable" might of "progress." Uh-oh. Sound familiar?

That's the story we keep hearing. That things "are getting better." Which is often code (when said by people with power) to mean, "stop complaining - be thankful for what you're given;" a justification for those same people to do nothing active to change how things are.

But the problem is - things haven't "been getting better." Things are better now than they were during the 1800s and early 1900s, for sure. But, as far as race relations go, they aren't better than a few hundred years before that. So, if we're looking at the BIG PICTURE, things (racially speaking) have actually been getting WORSE over the course of history. But that kind of outlook doesn't really help the current straight*** white male power system keep us blind and apathetic. If we become too aware of all that, then we might actually start doing something about it, instead of passively talking about "progress" and waiting for the "inevitable" improvement.

In the meantime, racism prevails. We continue to think that welfare recipients are black, single parents that are waiting for handouts without working for it (when data proves to us that those black, single parents actually tend to work MORE than any other demographic). We talk about how our Irish immigrant forefathers "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" in the face of adversity, while black Americans have not done the same (ignoring the fact that those black Americans who did exactly that were lynched, beaten, and threatened with no legal recourse up to a couple decades back****). We talk about McCain being a "true patriot" because he was tortured at the hands of Vietnamese savages (while we torture and hold "terrorists" without trial or direct evidence to this very day). We pillory black athletes who screw up, chiding them for not being role models (then go out to see another movie that only casts black males as thugs and convicts).

We tell our kids to value their educations - then pump lies down their throats.

Progress is NOT inevitable. It has to be fought for, tooth and nail. Because racism has been the most successful, enduring invention of the last thousand years, and I'm tired of paying for it.


* At least what we would now call "one race."

** Which implies "more intelligent" versus "less intelligent," of course.

*** I could do a very similar post about the invention of homophobia (and will at some point).

**** And it's arguable whether or not equivalents are truly a thing of the past.

On the Invention of Racism, Part I

So, before I get into this post, I want to note that uglyblackjohn secretly (not really, but the announcement was embedded in the comments of my first post, so I just found it) bestowed a blogging award on me last week. Just found it, so I shall let that marinate for a minute before I more competently address that. However, I wanted to thank uglyblackjohn for the acknowledgment and invite you all to click on his name above to check out his blog.

Now, on to the racism!!!



The above image is a depiction of a schematic drawing from one of Leonardo da Vinci's many inventions. Da Vinci, of course, is now (and was during his time) acknowledged as one of the foremost geniuses of his time - and maybe beyond. A true representative of a "Renaissance Man," he flourished as Europe came out of the throes of the Dark Ages.

But the question is: how did Europe come out of the Dark Ages? And what were other people doing during that time? Did the Dark Ages span the entire world?

To answer the last question first - of course not. While Europe was battling through plague and squalor and the lack of any semblance of what modern folks call "civilization" (i.e. literacy, academia, peaceful co-existence, medicine, hygiene, etc.) the rest of the world was - gasp - doing pretty much fine. China was pushing along, celebrating over two thousand years straight of scholastic aptitude and written language. In Western Africa, Timbuktu boasted a library of 1600 volumes, as well as a university rivaled only by another advanced university in the Sudan (Eastern Africa). Arab Muslims (the Moors) were in a period of scientific and academic achievement perhaps unrivaled in all of the world. Across the Pacific, the Mayan, Incan, and Aztec Empires were building cities of hundreds of thousands with irrigated farmlands and sewage systems.

In Europe, backwards tribes were fighting over nomadic lands and wallowing in their own filth.

So how did white Europeans stop acting like savages and get a little bit of civilization? By getting help from all the non-white civilizations, of course. Mostly, it was the Moors who were able to pass on their knowledge to the primitive Europeans. Their extensive academic and scientific knowledge - preserved in libraries - was the backbone of European "genius" as it blossomed during the Renaissance. But the Europeans were smart - they knew that they had much to learn from all the other more advanced civilizations, so they built on what they learned from interactions with the Chinese and Africans that they traded with. End result? Europe stopped being a cesspool.

Or did it? At the time of the white "discovery" of the Americas, London was still a city swarming with filth and excrement and disease (while the Mexican city of Tenochtitlan harbored hundreds of thousands - perhaps more - in perfectly-ordered streets). Scotland was a hinterland full of feuding tribes. The indigenous Americans commented on the incoming Europeans' filth (as it was against custom for white folks to bathe at the time, while the Natives upheld customs of cleanliness and hygiene).

So how did these backwards people take over the world? Was it because they were more "advanced"? Somewhat. They surely had more firepower in most cases. But it really came down to savagery. Because the conquering Europeans were more ruthless in their desire to kill all who stood in their way, they were able to succeed. Oh, and not to mention the fact that over 70% of the original inhabitants of the Americas died of disease before even having a chance to fight back.

Because the fact of the matter is that the indigenous Americans taught the Europeans how to farm, so they could survive in the "New World." Most of the original colonial towns were built on Native city-plans (complete with sectioned-off farm-plots) that had been abandoned as Natives died of plague (probably smallpox).

So where does the racism come in? Well, somewhere along the line, white Europeans became the "inevitable" conquerors of the world. Somewhere along the line, we stopped thinking of the different "races" (which didn't really exist in the way they do now) as equals. We stopped thinking of the various non-white civilizations of the world as on par with (or more advanced than) white European culture. Somewhere, somehow, we started ranking races against each other. Instead of where we had been - where different ethnicities were acknowledged to be different (because, even then, there was no "color-blind") and unusual, but NOT inferior - we came to a world where people started thinking of different "races" as more or less human than others.

So how did that happen? By design, pure and simple. Racism was intentionally constructed to serve very specific purposes. Racism is not - and has never been - a natural result of physical differences between people. I'm tired of hearing that claim. Noticing difference and grouping people IS natural. But those are two very different things - with very different possible results.

And so, if you tune in for my next installment, I will break down the true history of racism, why it was invented, the results, and (hopefully) what we can do about it.

The suspense must be killing you . . .

On Guess Who?

Opponenet: "Is your mystery person black?"

Me: Shit!!! "Yes."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had Thanksgiving dinner at a friend's house, and while I was there, her daughter pulled out the classic game "Guess Who?" and challenged me to a round.*

The second I saw the box and the name, I was thinking to myself, "Holy sh--. Guess Who!! I remember that game! I used to play that all the time as a kid." The thoughts that quickly followed covered my memories of the ridiculously small number of people of color in the game (all black), and the fact that there had only been one woman of color in the whole game. I recalled the feeling of knowing I had all but lost when I drew that card with the black female face on it. And I was interested in seeing how the PC police had updated the game since my childhood.

The answer? NOT AT ALL. I mean - honestly- not one bit. Although the style of cartoon was a bit different, the numbers were the same: 24 faces; 5 faces of color (all black); 5 female; one black female. Sure, there were a couple black-haired folks that could possibly represent other races, but they certainly seem white. Either way, the messages remain the same: It is a negative thing (i.e. you're going to lose) if your person is black because - 1) White male people are the norm. 2) There are some black people, but they are rare. 3) Black women are extremely rare (and unacceptable). 4) Those are the only two races in the world that matter (even if one of those races hardly matters) - white and black. Forget Asian, Latin@, Arab, Native Indian, Pacific Islander, or any other such "abnormal" races. 80% white. 80% male. Nothing else matters.

It kind of blew my mind. And it hurt. Fresh from my "encounter" with the young Asian kid from the YouTube video I put up on Wednesday, I couldn't help but be reminded of one other arena in my youth where I wasn't "normal" enough to count or be counted. One more straw reminding me of my outsider stance in this country. A freaking kids' game!!! Just like all the other manufactured kids' games I played throughout my youth - not a single one had an Asian kid, that's for sure (most didn't even have a single non-white kid).

Otherization. Constant messaging throughout every mass-marketed second of my childhood. And from these two recent examples (Guess Who? and the YouTube kid) - none of it has changed. Sure, we elected a black president - that's beyond huge - but where the Hell will my kids go to feel like part of it all?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opponent: "Is your mystery person Asian (or Arab or Latin@ or Native Indian or Pacific Islander or mixed)?"

Me: "Yes."

Opponent: "That's not possible - you must be cheating."

* For those that missed the "Guess Who?" boat, the rules are simple: each player has a board filled up with a bunch of cartoon faces (the same for each player) on plastic tiles that can be lifted or put down. You each draw a card with one of those faces on it, and then you proceed to try to guess your opponent's face by taking turns asking 20-Questions-type questions, flipping face-down any face that doesn't fit the characteristics of your opponent ("Does your mystery person have a mustache?" No. Flip down all people with a mustache).

** When looking for images for this post, I actually found images of a current version of the game where EVERY face is white - only one slightly-tan face in sight. And people say we're "post-racial." How I'd like to cave their f-ing heads in . . .

On Interracial Math

This is going to be a short post. Short, because there's not a whole lot to say about the matter - but that doesn't make it any less important.

Over the years, I've often heard people speak of interracial relationships and mixed children as a key to "changing the world" and making current racial designations obsolete within the next 50 years. I've already discussed - at length - why I disagree, but I just want to ask one simple question regarding these magical multi-racial babies and their interracial parents:

Who do mixed (specifically white-plus-another-race) folks end up dating or having kids with most often: white people, other mixed people, people sharing the race of their non-white parent, or another race entirely?

Now, really think before answering.

Guess what? Biracial kids are more likely to end up having white partners than any of the other groups.* And it's not too shocking really.

The reasons? First of all, there are more white people in this country than there are any other race, so if you're somebody that crosses different racial barriers, you're still more likely, statistically-speaking, to run into white people - therefore a higher chance of randomly ending up with a white person.

Of course, it's not just random. Because biracial kids with one white parent generally grow up more immersed in white culture than their other culture. Part of this is the fact that we live in the U.S., which is dominated by white culture. But it's also because white culture is more "acceptable" and "normal," and the white partners are less able to actively subdue their own "normality" to enable their child to have an even immersion in both racial cultures of their parents. So - if a kid is raised in white culture, white people are who they are going to be around more often, and have more in common with, culturally, than another race - thus making it more likely for them to date white people.

Also, biracial kids are seen as more "acceptable" partners for white people than mono-racial "others." We're "exotic" and all that, a more comfortable middle ground for white people that want to "date dangerously," but don't really want to cross the racial line. We're less-threatening and more user-friendly, and so white people are more likely to be attracted to (and be okay with dating) us than somebody "more ethnic."

The end result? Within three generations, the descendants of an interracial union are basically white (I don't believe in the "one-drop" rule when we're talking fourths or smaller), making them more likely to date other white people, etc. So that - really - the majority of interracial relationships between a white partner and another race are the first step in white-washing the non-white partners racial lineage. So, in spite of all these arguments to the contrary, many interracial relationships are actually reducing racial diversity and color in the long-run. Now ain't that a crazy concept?

And for those who don't buy my argument - do a bit of snooping around, and tell me what you find. Find families of bi-racial (white and non-white) couples and see what the grandchildren look like. Personally, my cousins have pretty much drained all the Chinese blood from our family line, already. My brother is marrying a white girl. A large number of the mixed kids I knew back in the Bay have married white people (in fact, all the ones that I am aware of that have gotten married).

One possible exception to this rule is biracial (white/black) women. Partly, this is due to the fact that biracial folks with black heritage are a lot more likely to be considered just "black" on a general level. More importantly, it involves various racial stereotypes about black women, etc. which makes this the one exception where my proposed trend may not fall out (although I'm not entirely sure about that).

So, look around. Read up on some statistics. Do the math. And please don't tell me that interracial dating is a cure for racism until you have some proof. Because I'm not buying.

* I had actual numbers on this at one point, but lost them - anybody?

On the Right to Claim One's Own Identity

It seems appropriate that I found the picture for this post on a police site in reference to "identity theft." Obviously, they meant it in terms of fraudulently using another person's information to steal, whereas this post is about race - but is there really that much difference in how people see it?

As a bi-racial person that walks in the "gray area" between races, I have elected to choose how I identify myself, racially, based on my various experiences and how my life has played out as a result of those experiences. On a general level, I call myself, simply "mixed." Being more specific, I will tell people I am "bi-racial, with a white dad and Chinese mother." If really pressed on the issue to decide my final word on my racial identity: I am a mixed-race Asian-American.

Just to clarify - that last "identity" I wrote up there? That's one thing. It's a specific racial experience. The "mixed" part of it speaks to my physical ambiguity and the subsequent variations in racial treatment I have received from others. The "Asian-American" part of it speaks to my specific cultural connection to my Chinese side (and my subsequent "priority" of representing and bringing up Asian-Americans in this country). Put it together, and that's what I am.

Because, of course, neither one on its own fully speaks to who I am/what my experience has been. I'm mixed/bi-racial, but so is Barack Obama, and I would hesitate to say that we share a whole lot in terms of racial experiences. Sure, we could probably have a nice chat about the "gray area" and all that, but there would be a huge piece lacking for both of us in that conversation. And that's where the included "Asian-American" aspect comes in. Because that's what changes the experience from a generalized "mixed" blanket (which is so very wide) to my more specific situation.

And there have been debates upon debates in the media and elsewhere about this: is Obama "black" or "bi-racial"? All I can say to this is - obviously, all the people having this "debate" (I'd argue that it's pretty one-sided by both parties) are no mixed or bi-racial. Because there is no debate at all - he's a bi-racial black man. Period.

This "one or the other" crap is so decidedly mono-racial and close-minded. It again illustrates how hard it is for people to believe in or trust an experience different from their own. Mono-racial white folks think that this claim denigrates Obama's white mother. Mono-racial black folks think his claims to bi-raciality are "selling out." As a result, both sides mistrust his "intentions" in the claims he makes. All I can say to those folks is: yours is not the only racial experience. There is so much more out there that you have no clue about, and I respectfully ask you to open your eyes and mind to other possibilities.

Because Obama has clearly paid respect to his white side. And he has equally made clear that he is aware - personally - of the black experience and means to do something about that. It's not one or the other. It's both. That's the beauty of those of us in the middle - we have no need to "play sides" or "have it both ways" because we can't. We're equally of both sides and fully neither at the same time.

It never fails to blow my mind how often mono-racial people (of any race) like to try to tell me how I should identify. Those very same anti-racists that would tell others never to assume or pretend that they "know" what another racial experience is like are the same ones who - often - tell me "what I am." Nobody wants to claim us mixed folks until it's convenient - and to that, I say, "back off."*

Now, am I arguing that anybody can choose to identify themselves however they want, racially? Hell no. I had a conversation with a white friend once, and he asked me how I thought of myself, racially, so I replied, "Well, I definitely don't consider myself 'white.'" To that he responded, "I totally know what you mean - I don't consider myself white, either." Record-scratch - WHAT!!!???

If you're white, you're white. I don't care how many different "mixes" of European ancestry you have - you're still "white." If you live and breathe white privilege, it's not okay to take that privilege one step further to try to take on a different race. There is white culture, and just because it's not "exotic" enough for some people doesn't give them a right to steal other ones.

Whoo! And that general rule applies to everybody else - if an ethnicity isn't in your blood, then you can't claim it. I've been thought to be Latino many times - but I sure as Hell wouldn't claim to be Latino, even if that was the majority of my experience. I blend in with native Hawaiians and some Native American tribes more so than my actual racial precursors, but that doesn't make it mine.

So - racial claims must be rooted in blood and experience. It is an insult to all people of color to think it works otherwise. Stealing is no way to respect another way of being.

And so we bring it back full-circle to the issue of identity theft - in short, if it's not yours, don't claim it. If you have to make a circuitous argument to back a racial claim, then - likely - it's not yours to claim. As for us mixed folks - as our mixed-blood dictates, we are a combination of racial experiences, so let's just put an end to non-mixed claims to the contrary right now, okay?

Okay. Thanks.

* I'd actually use more choice words, but I'm feeling "teacherly" right now and don't feel that swearing is appropriate.

On Being a Bridge

(I am currently working at a summer arts camp, so my posts will be coming infrequently - I'll be back at it for real in another three weeks)

With all the racial politics going around, Obama's speeches and analysis thereof, we've all heard it a million times now - that multi-racial folks like me (and Obama) are a "bridge between the races." We are a "step towards racial understanding." In another 50 years, everybody is going to look like us, and nobody is going to care about race. Some day, we'll all just be "a shade of brown."

Well, I just wanted to put my two cents in on this one, and I call bullsh**.

That's right. I'm not buying it for a second. But, as the polite blogger that I am, I shall tell you why I feel that way.

First of all, I don't really buy into the statistics. Over the course of the last couple decades, there has been an increase in population of people who identify as multiracial. A large increase. If you want specifics, it shouldn't be hard to find, but I'm feeling lazy, so we'll just leave it at that. My first issue with the numbers is the semantics - "people who identify as multiracial." That's well-put. Because it has only been recently that we have been able to even claim a multiracial background on most official documentation (and still - not all). Therefore, I think a large part of this increase in reportage is simply a reflection of the ability to choose anything other than monoracial.

Documentation aside, I think there is also more of a feeling these days that identifying as "mixed" is acceptable. We come from a history of one-drop and Jim Crow and - up until recently - people just had to go with their darkest blood. Any of us who were bi-racial white and anything else would have just claimed the non-white race not too long ago. Hell - I bet my parents would have claimed me as simply "Asian-American" when I was a child.

And it's still not fully acceptable for some folks to claim "mixed" or "biracial" as their racial category. In no community is this more clear than in the American black community. First off, it's largely because there may be zero "black" folks in the entire United States that aren't mixed to some degree or another. However, in no other community have I seen such a feeling of betrayal when a bi-racial person claims "mixed" over "black." This debate has raged all over the place, and - for now - I don't mean to discuss it,* but it still isn't "okay" to claim to be "mixed" in many communities.**

So I think the statistics are a bit iffy. I don't really believe that there's this huge increase in interracial coupling going on that's going to make us all be mixed by 2060. Sure, there's likely an increase - but I think it's hardly exaggerated.

However, even if the numbers are increasing at an incredible rate, I don't think that's necessarily going to do anything at all to change perceptions on race. Why? Because I know it won't.

I agree that being bi-racial increases my racial understanding and makes me have more of a compassionate perspective on both sides. It really does. But is anybody else willing to hear it? Hell no. Mono-racial people (white and otherwise) absolutely love to discount those experiences and that perspective. Mono-racial people don't want to listen. It is so difficult for them to understand the mixed experience that they do what all humans like to do with things they don't understand - ignore it. And that's what they do. And it works quite nicely.

We all saw everybody's reactions to Obama's speech that included his white side and black side. People on both sides called him a "traitor" and distrusted him. Everybody thought he was trying to "play both sides," and so everybody doubted him. When, really, Obama probably does understand both sides. But there are very few people out there (that aren't mixed, themselves) willing to accept that.

So what if people can learn to get over that, and finally come to grips that being mixed really is a distinct experience? Well, we just get one more racial category. Look at Brazil. People really are all shades down there, and there are classifications for all those shades. And, still, lighter is treated as better than darker skin. It's just a more variegated racial hierarchy - not an end to racism or prejudice. So why do people think it would be any different here in the States? It wouldn't be.

Human beings group each other. We want to know who is with "us" and who with "them." And that's not something that's ever going to change. If people are more varied in their skin-tones and physical features, we'll just get more discriminating in our categories. We're already ridiculously varied - but only the few are able to realize that, like wine connoisseurs able to distinguish subtleties that the average consumer cannot. If everybody becomes a regular wine-drinker (or is mixed), that will just increase people's abilities to distinguish based on subtler nuances. The separation will continue, just the same.

And so I tell you - I am not a bridge. I could be, to a certain extent, if people were willing to listen, but we all know that that is an unreasonable request. I shall do what I can - mostly just to keep myself sane - but I will not risk high expectations in that. This blog is an effort to reach people (and teach people) in some way, but I'll be content with two readers that get something from it. Because I've been "mixed" too long to think that many more are going to be willing to hear it.

* Don't worry - I certainly will.

** I don't know how many times people have argued with me about whether I'm "mixed" or "Asian-American." I just love it when people tell me my own experience.

On the Gray Area in Between

And so we continue to slug away at the identity of this particular mixed kid.* So we've knocked off the white side. Took care of the Chinese side. So that leaves us right here: somewhere in between. Somewhere hazy and non-concrete. Somewhere with no easily-attributable label. Somewhere that makes A LOT of people (generally mono-racial folks) uncomfortable.

For me, though? This is just the path I walk.

So what is this "gray area" all about? The first aspect of it is this strange situation where I find myself coming from two races - white and Chinese - without really being part of either of them. My life and experiences have not been truly either one. So that leaves confusion in its wake. At least to those that have never walked this path. It's the path of a permanent "other." The path of somebody who knows that there is nobody out there (racially, at least) waiting to claim him.

It gets lonely, sure. Hawaii has the largest population of mixed folks, at 24%. That's the largest population. So the best I could hope for in my life is to walk around and have one out of four people share my general physical appearance. To me, that actually seems like a ridiculously high number, but the fact that it feels that way is equally ridiculous.** And a bit sad.

I had a black friend who went on a trip to Senegal. When he came back, he was just beaming. Telling everybody about it, showing pictures, and urging all his friends of color to go visit a place where "everybody looks like them" because it was the best feeling imaginable. It's also a feeling I can't have.

So is the gray area just a place of self-pity and loneliness? Not at all.

No. Because walking the gray area of race has given me a perspective on race that other people can never have. I have seen race, smelled it, heard it, tasted it, and felt it from all angles. Primarily white and Asian, of course, but also - due to my ambiguous features - a bit of Native American, Latino, Pacific Islander. A few times, I even was thought to be (and treated as) part-black.

And that range of experience has led me to lay claim to a wider swathe of humanity. I think it's made it easier for me to actually listen to people. To connect with people of all different types, persuasions, and experiences. I don't get as caught up in one singular issue of oppression at the expense of all others - because I live in the gray area. In the gray area, it all affects me. In the gray area lie connections - and I sit here, following all these strings to see how everything is tied together.

Other people haven't been blessed with the opportunity to see it this way - and so I often see people of color who only know, and care about, the experience of their own race. They talk about fighting oppression, but what they mean is that they want to fight against oppression against THEM. Not everybody. They accept allies as long as the allies will fight the battles they choose for them. And they are closed to taking on their allies' battles, as well. It makes sense to me. I get it. But I just wish they could walk in the gray area for a minute to see why they should just cut that out. And if white people could walk in the gray area? Celebrate the end of white privilege and institutional racism.

And I have been lucky to walk in a gray area that includes two different nationalities and cultures. From childhood, I have known how to walk respectfully in two very different cultural worlds. I have had the opportunity to take the good from each and bring them together in myself. I have respect for my elders - and the wisdom experience has brought them. But I also do not fear to actively make my life happen. I understand what it is to be a foreigner - from two sides.

It is the gray area and my comfort with being of two cultures that made me get along so well living in Tanzania. It was so easy for me to figure out "how it is" there, and people were telling me that I had "become Tanzanian" long before I had to leave. That seemed like a result of immersion alone until I started opening my eyes to other expats in the country. Even those that were trying so hard (all white folks, but I think that was not necessarily a reflection of race - just who happened to go there) had hang-ups. Had struggles with concepts and cultural norms that they just "couldn't get."

The gray area helps me as a teacher. Again - it is easy for me to connect to people, to find a level of ground that we share, so my kids trust me. They don't consider me as taking any particular side. My racial "otherness" enables kids of every race to connect to me on that level, as well. And regarding middle schoolers, in general, my life of being an "outsider" to some level or other helps me easily understand their constant insecurity.

So is this gray area a universal place for mixed people? I doubt it. That's the other interesting thing about being mixed. Although there are plenty of shared experiences between myself and other bi-racial people, it ranges wide, depending on the races involved, our coloring and appearance, etc. And then there are the multi-racial folks who walk in an even broader gray area than we limited bi-racial 'tweeners.

Who else walks in the gray area? My answer will rely a bit on conjecture, but American immigrants are definitely here. I have bonded with many non-white immigrants over the bi-cultural experience and not fully identifying with either side (once they've been here for a while). My mom is very Americanized, and that has had her step a bit in the gray area. I would imagine homosexual folks (both genders) walk in the gray area at times - as they likely do not gain full acceptance (often) from people of their own race because of their choice of partners. American Jews also walk that gray area a bit - being accorded levels of white privilege, yet still being mindlessly stereotyped, hated, and left out of Christian America. I'm sure there are others (and I would like to hear stories of my readers' "gray areas"), but I'll leave it at that for now.***

So - I'm not truly alone here. In fact, in a way, walking the gray area expands my world to be more inclusive. And I kind of like that. It gives me a quiet confidence in the company of strangers. It enables me to walk in the world with my head held high. Because I know exactly where I stand:

Right here. In the gray area between racial understanding. I hope you all get to join me sometime.

* For some reason, I still tend to refer to myself as a "kid," even though I'm - what some have called - a "grown-ass man." That's probably some psychological fodder for some people to play with.

** When I spent a week in Honolulu last spring, I felt like I could relax and blend IN for the first time in years. I can't even begin to explain that feeling.

*** I know there's all sorts of you readers out there - but you're not commenting! Come on - join in the fun. Get your piece in and start a conversation. I'd love to hear some outside takes on all this.

On Not Being Chinese

So. We've established that I am not white. Good for me, right? Which brings the follow-up question for a bi-racial (white/Chinese) guy - then am I Chinese?

The short answer? No.

Now let's get into the long answer.

We'll start off by handling semantics real quick. Obviously, being born in the U.S., I can't possibly be literally Chinese. Therefore, for the sake of expedience, when I say "Chinese," I actually mean "Chinese-American."

By blood, then, I am Chinese. My mom was born in China. That makes my blood (half of it) Chinese. But, as I argued with my "Not White" post, we all know that blood doesn't really have that much say in regards to race in this country. A large part of it is experience, and that's where my answer lies.

Granted, I grew up with some Chinese influence. My grandmother tried to teach my brother and I to read and write Chinese (to my knowledge - it was a long time ago - Mandarin, although my family is from Shanghai). For most of my conscious life, my grandparents lived in Oakland Chinatown, where we would visit them somewhat regularly. My grandmother taught Tai-Chi and I was given her sword after her death. As she got older, my grandma would forget that I didn't speak Chinese and would hold "conversations" with me in Chinese (I think Shanghai-ese). At home, we ate tons of rice and used chopsticks relatively often. I got somewhat used to seeing "strange" things eaten around me (although, I was mostly picky about eating the same).

There's a little bit more to it, but not a whole lot. Because I mainly grew up in white American culture. My schools were largely white (although, being the Bay Area, there was still a decent number of Asian - mostly Chinese - folks around). My friends - when I was little - were mostly white. It wasn't until I grew older that my circle of friends stopped being so dominated by white kids. My home life was mostly a white way of life with a dash of rice, soy sauce, and chopsticks. I failed to learn to read or write Chinese characters, and I never learned the language (any dialect thereof).

So many of the experiences that tend to connect a person to some sort of true "Chinese-ness" were denied me. My appearance didn't really help, either, as - to full-blood Chinese folks - I didn't look "Chinese" at all. My grandmother's friends would often question her about me and my brother when we were in Chinatown. I always felt tall and white while visiting her. Early on (this was before my conscious memories), my grandmother referred to me and my brother as "the shame of the family" because of our mix.*

Due to this, I have never felt fully connected to my Chinese blood. I have found myself trying, in recent years, to bridge that gap, but it is difficult.** Because of my ambiguous look (I'm just as likely to be thought of as a number of other races other than Asian - let alone Chinese), I've never been fully accepted by "real" Chinese. Sure, I can connect on some levels, but there are a number of ways that I am the "third-rate Asian sell-out" that some Asian kids at my high school accused me of being. I'm working to remedy that, but it's not so easy to do, considering my background.

And so, when thinking about my Chinese-ness, it really comes to the culture. I am not white from experiences generally based on my physical traits and how that makes people interact with me. But, with my Chinese side, I feel "not Chinese" because of my limited connection to Chinese (and now I'm talking more of "true" Chinese and not just "Chinese-American") culture. I think the lack of language plays a HUGE part of that (as I strongly believe no true understanding of a people can take place without being able to speak their language fluently).***

I also think my visual disconnect in appearance greatly contributed to my internal disconnect. Since I felt like I didn't "look Chinese,"**** since I so often was mistaken for something else, since I received numerous messages telling me I wasn't "really Chinese" - it all led to me not embracing it as my own. To keeping distance between myself and a full effort to incorporate Chinese culture into my way of being. And that created a "vicious circle" situation that fed upon itself.

And so only after my Chinese grandmother's death (she was the last of my grandparents) did I make the conscious decision to start becoming "more Chinese." To start really making Chinese culture part of who I am on a more "real" level. Now, I actually know a little bit of what Chinese New Year is about - and I celebrate it in a way I never did as a kid. Again - I'm learning the language and planning on living in China sometime soon (within the next year or two). I've considered learning a Chinese martial art.***** And I believe that if I follow through on all these things, I may actually become more Chinese. Not fully - not ever can I be fully Chinese, due to my mix - but much more than I am now.

And I am excited for that prospect. To understand that half of myself and my family in a way that I never have before. To honor that side. And, as I am somebody who follows through on things once I've made a decision, it will happen.

But - until then - I'm not quite Chinese, either. More Chinese than white, for sure - but still with a lot further to go.

* She got over it, becoming fiercely proud of our accomplishments in later life. I think the fact that all of my married cousins have white spouses contributed to that.

** Finally trying to learn Chinese (Mandarin, simply because that makes the most sense), planning a long-term visit to China, etc.

*** When living in Tanzania, it was the mastery of Swahili that made my mind switch into "Tanzania-mode." Automatically using various turns-of-phrase and expressions and exclamations changed not only how I spoke, but how I looked out into the world. I still find myself slipping back into a "Tanzania mind-set" when I speak (or, much more often) write or read Swahili. And yes, I am fully aware of the irony that I speak Swahili fluently, but am barely a beginner in Chinese - that's for another day.

**** Personally, I feel like I look more Japanese in terms of body-build and overall facial appearance (especially when I have my quasi-facial hair going).

***** I told Ah-Boo (my grandmother) once that I was going to start learning Tai-Chi, and she responded with shock, "Why would you do that!? Tai-Chi is for old people!" And that effectively ended my Tai-Chi drive (once I'm much older, though, I plan on returning to it).

On Not Being White

I am not white.* Nope. Not so much. This is something I've known (to some degree or another) since early childhood. Something that I am glad for (not trying to bash white folks here, just saying) and something that has caused some grief, at times.

However, I recently got involved in an online discussion about bi-racial folks (in the context of Obama) not "claiming" their white side - and there were those that argued that mixed (white and non-white) kids are "just as much white" as the race of their non-white parent. I would like to, respectfully, disagree.

Now, obviously, my inheritance - literally - is as equally white (from my father) as Chinese (from my mother).** No question there, and I'm not going to argue against that. So, if we're talking about blood, then - sure - that's the case.

Problem is, blood doesn't really have a lot to do with race in America (or outside, either). Plenty of science refuting claims of "race" being genetically traceable is out there, so most of us won't argue that blood and genetics don't physically make up race. When we talk about "race," we're talking about what somebody looks like, and that is not strictly linked to genetic background.

More importantly, race in America is an experience. Although it's great to say "other people should have no say in how a person identifies," that is not realistic. My EXPERIENCES (not me, personally, but my specific experiences) are based on how people perceive me. If somebody treats me as Latino, for instance, it really doesn't matter what my actual background is - because, for the duration of that EXPERIENCE, I will bear the brunt of Latino stereotypes (for good or bad). Now, those experiences certainly don't MAKE ME Latino (and give me no right to claim that heritage), but they give me a taste - one moment - of Latino racial experience, which then goes on to color (literally) how I walk in the world.

So -as somebody who has never been treated as white by other people - I have had little of the white racial experience. Thus, that part of the world has been largely locked out from me, in spite of my father's background.

Of course, racial experience is also built on a continuum of privilege in this country, which is more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else. All those arguing that there is no white American "culture" are deluded - white American culture is walking through the world with the privilege that comes with it. Class plays into it, of course - few poor white Americans are going to feel very "privileged," but they still have the privilege of physical representation. They don't have to seek out white faces in the media, in power. White folks will never have to try to find "their channel" or "their radio station" and fall short, frustrated. They won't ask why the books they read and the movies they watch don't have major characters that look like them. They may not be represented in a number of other ways, but - racially, physically - that's one major source of stress that won't hit them on a nation-wide level.

So, as far as white culture goes, where do I fall? To some extent, I have been a recipient of the pleasures of white privilege. My parents met in college, a bastion of white privilege (no matter what people argue). My father's successes in life were helped along by the fact of white privilege (sure, he worked hard as Hell, but he got higher than he may have otherwise without white privilege), and those successes trickled down to me in terms of (relative) financial stability. That stability gained me entrance into the white privilege of being college-educated. My steady exposure to white culture growing up enabled me to be able to master standardized tests to be academically successful, etc.

However, my experience was one of a fish-out-of-water, racially. One of my first real fights in school was with a white kid who told me to "go back to where you came from." As a child, kids told me to "speak Asian".*** When I was good at math, it wasn't because I worked hard, it was because "I was Asian." Playing football, I watched other Asian teammates stop playing; when I was really good at it, it was as a racial exception. In college, people assumed that I must be an Engineer or math major. People constantly asked me, "what are you?"

I was lucky enough to grow up in the SF Bay Area, so - although my high school was predominantly white - I was able to surround myself with a racially diverse group of friends (RIDICULOUSLY so, as I mentioned before - almost every skin-tone represented). I was comfortable in that social group in my school not because I "felt white" but because I didn't stand out, racially, with them.

When I lived in Tanzania for a year and a half, I was called out as "Mchina" ("Chinaman," more or less) in distinct counterpoint to the other ex-pats, who were called "Mzungu" ("white person"). I had to explain that I was still American, even though I was so obviously "Chinese" to them.****

And then I moved to Portland, Oregon. At last count (2003, I think), Portland was the whitest city in the U.S. (in terms of "major" U.S. cities). And it's pretty obvious if you stay here for a little bit. It's also ridiculously segregated. So here, above all other places I've been, my non-white-ness has stood out. I am ALWAYS the only mixed person in a room. Generally, the only person with Asian blood. Mostly, the only non-white person.

And Portland is so "liberal," so it stands out even more. When I hear people talk about "diversity" and see no other non-white people around. When I watch liberal white folks appropriate all sorts of different aspects of different non-white cultures without even thinking about it. When, working at a "liberal, progressive" non-profit, I have been mistaken for the other Asian employee multiple times.

And, oddly enough, I am thought to be Latino (specifically, Mexican) here more often than any other race or ethnicity. I have had random (white) strangers speak to me slowly in English, asking if I speak Spanish (and if you ever saw me in person, you would immediately understand how ridiculous this is). I've had Latin@ students bond and connect with me and then become shocked when they hear my actual racial background.

So here, more than any other place, my non-white racial identity has grown. Grown to encompass more than Chinese and Asian culture, but a more generalized "mixed," and - sometimes - "brown." This is where my politicized racial self has been mostly formed - in direct response to the naive, "liberal" whiteness I see all around me.

I can walk into a room of people of color (of any racial background) and relax my shoulders, instantly understood on a certain level - no matter the other variables that would have us be different. When I walk in a room of white people, no matter other commonalities, I don't fully belong. I get ready to hear something that's going to make me cringe.

And so - I am not equally "white" and "Chinese." In fact, I am more "non-white" than I am Chinese, in some ways (that's for another post). That is the fact of this particular bi-racial experience. And it may not be other people's experiences, but I have a feeling that - in this country - it largely is for other mixed folks with white blood.

So - what does it all mean? Where do we go from here? Nowhere specific. Just a place of better understanding. Somewhere where white folks will be able to understand why there's an automatic barrier between us (at the beginning) even though my father is white. And why my lack of claim to "whiteness" is neither self-hate nor some sort of "reverse-racism." Nor is it a denial.

For I fully acknowledge my white inheritance. I rooted for Russia in EuroCup this year. I celebrate St. Patrick's Day. And I love my father and would accept no substitute.

I'm just "not white."


* My skin-tone is closer to "russet" (bordering on "henna") in the summer months, fading to "sweet honey" or "creme caramel" in the dark winters, for those interested.

** A simplistic look, but we don't need a genetics discussion here.

*** I had a routine with one white friend in elementary school where I would make up all sorts of sounds and tell him I was speaking Chinese (although I knew almost none), and he totally bought it. I would say something in my made up language, and then translate it into English for him. When he had me do it for his mom, I thought my cover was about to be blown . . . but she bought it, too.

**** Interestingly enough - in Tanzania I showed some kids a National Geographic that had an article on Mexico. When the kids saw the pictures, they shouted out "Mchina" and pointed at a photo of a Mexican man. Since they had no experience with Latin@ people, non-white folks with black hair were automatically "Chinese" (which more or less stood in for all Asians).