e pur si muove

For the guys, consider testosterone boxer shorts.

Girls, don’t feel left out. Try a neurotransmitter charm bracelet or estrogen earrings.

As seen on Retrospectacle.

Channel X has just released episode two, a two-parter on the origins of the Asian values concept was quite the political talking point in the 1990s until the collapse of the Thai baht in 1997/8 wiped exponents off their economic high-horses.

Nathan makes an excellent point that the concept of being “Asian” is really a mirage. I was just talking to the Screwy Skeptic yesterday in Chicago over dim sum brunch (with Kevin and Penny) and this point came up at the discussion. The United States as a nation is beginning to wake up to the growing economic importance of Mexico, not just as a trade partner and poor neighbor to the south, but the Latin American community, as the debate over illegal immigrants (primarily from Mexico) waxed in recent months and allied sentiments from Puerto Ricans, Venezualans, and even Brazilians have contributed to the strength of demonstrations in pushing the issue into the foray of public awareness.

The solidarity shown by the Hispanic community is impressive, no doubt partly due to their large presence (13.4%) in the population, but also for their diverse backgrounds with ancestors from Cuba or Spain. Contrast this with the state of Asian-Americans. It’s really hard to imagine Vietnamese-Americans gelling with Korean-Americans, and Japanese-Americans being all chummy with other hyphenated-Americans. They don’t speak the same language, they don’t eat the same food, and they just barely get along without xenophobia erupting into all-out riots. They aren’t even all the same skin color: think of the South Asians, so commonly sidestepped in favor of the CJKs, i.e. East Asians. It’s just such a diverse community.

And the tradition of “beat up your neighbor before they get you” xenophobia (the most infamous being the Koreans and the Japanese) sure doesn’t help.

Another interesting idea thrown out is meritocracy being the only tenet of Confucianism that is rewarded in modern society. Nathan’s argument is that while collectivism is very much part of the social and moral fabric of our society, the motivation for personal gain in a meritocracy is a strong counterforce to traditional mores and etiquette. It’s an angle I hadn’t considered before. Should meritocracy be considered a zero sum game, with personal gain often at the expense of others? Clearly it is when it comes to resources alloted by quota, such as places in top schools and the oft-maligned institution of scholarship. But I wonder how general you can make such a conclusion.

There’s also something to be said about the slippery slope nature of the false dichotomy between ally and enemy, democracy and anarchism, Western and Asian, good and bad, traditional and modern, provincial and cosmopolitan. What is tradition, if not the vast collected teachings and admonitions of our ancestors? Just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it’s always good. (Examples such as feet binding come to mind.) Likewise, not all things modern are bad. Clearly the shifting mores od morality (not to be confused with molarity, as I had initially typed) have quite a bit to do with this. But what it really is, to me at least, harkens back to acceptance of the liminal nature of reality, with true opposites being mere abstract concepts which must be interpolated between to achieve any kind of description that may remotely approach a realistic description of reality (as it were).

For what it’s worth, I think Channel X is awesome. Computer-generated voice aside, it does an excellent job of presenting abstract political concepts.

Update 200606201222: Balderdash has a rather interesting picture which he claims depicts Asian values: