This week, we talk protest and death in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon, and consider what to make of the longstanding, but local, street confrontations between the far right and “Antifa.” We then turn to the recent NBA players’ boycott(?) / strike(?) / demonstration(?): What does it mean, in labor terms? Why do we get so excited about bajillionaire athletes’ activism? (Check out what Jay wrote in NYRB and Andy, in n+1.)
0:37 – Inspired by the Milwaukee Bucks’ one-day work stoppage, professors plan a #ScholarStrike and labor unions… sign a petition. Which side are we on?
9:27 – Following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a white supremacist killed BLM protesters in Wisconsin, and a white supremacist was killed in Oregon. Is there any reason to fear a Trumpian militia war? What does the filmic replay of Patriot Prayer vs. Antifa do to our collective perception?
25:36 – The NBA, MLB, MLS, Naomi Osaka… a labor uprising or just scattered disaffection? We lit-crit our way through what’s been called a wildcat strike, making stops for the “NBA state media,” LeBron’s Obama-style-school-reform diplomacy, praise of teachers’ unions and old-school boycotts, unpaid college athletes, and the question of whether sports can carry progressive “revolution.”
Comments, questions, criticisms always welcome! Reach out via @TTSGpod or timetosaygoodbyepod@gmail.com. And get your friends to subscribe to our Substack!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
Today we’re presenting a conversation between myself (Andy) and my college friend Merlin Chowkwanyun, assistant professor of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
For years I’ve peppered Merlin with questions about how to understand the never-ending debate over “race versus class” in the US -- for instance, this New York Times piece from two weeks ago -- a subject that he’s studied for years.
We focus on a critique of “racial disparity” discourse that he has written about several times, co-authored with the political theorist Adolph Reed Jr. (University of Pennsylvania). Across discussions of public health, economics, and policing (for instance, their NEJM paper on Covid-19 disparities this spring), they argue that we too often view “race” as a natural and absolute trait, and “racism” as a question of primordial individual prejudice. Racial thinking, they argue, is in fact inseparable from an analysis of the dynamics of economics and class. “Race” as ideology is certainly real, but we should not mistake it as natural.
2:34 -- How did Merlin, a Thai-Chinese-American from the Asian SoCal suburbs find himself studying a primarily “black-white” story of race and racism in US history? Why not Asian American studies? How do his students make sense of the “black-white binary”?
18:20 -- We’ve all memorized the mantra “race is a social construct,” but Merlin argues that many old-fashioned nineteenth-century beliefs in the biological reality of race remain in circulation today, even among good liberals (think about the craze for 23andMe).
22:15 -- We touch on a recent New York Times article on the “race versus class” debate within the US left. Merlin has collaborated with Adolph Reed Jr. on several articles, but rather than take sides, we discuss their basic criticism of mainstream social science and its simplistic presentation of “racial disparities,” which often wind up stuck in individualized, psychologized notions of prejudice divorced from broader dynamics. Nate Silver-style quantitative regression analysis has helped reify “race” and “class” as static and natural variables of human existence.
30:40 -- Merlin and Reed’s co-authored articles on racial disparity reporting, both for Covid-19 and more generally. How did they come together to co-author these articles? Why is it dangerous to harp on “racial disparity” in a vacuum?
48:20 -- Missing from most discussions of “racial disparity” are the specific political-economic dynamics of capitalism. Specifically, modern “race” ideology originated in efforts to legitimize, justify, and naturalize slavery and Jim Crow in US history.
(In short: it’s not that white planters, because they were motivated by the racist ideas in their heads, therefore set up the slavery system; rather, because they profited off slavery and sought to defend it, planters then naturalized “race” as a scientific ideology.)
At stake today is this: a primordial account of racism (viz., “everyone’s just born a little racist”) is one that does not challenge the inequities of capitalism and is thus easily embraced by ultra-rich institutions and corporations.
57:20 -- Merlin warns (Andy) against going too far with “the Marxism” and reducing everything to capitalism. But also a warning against “white fragility”-style characterizations of 400 years of continuous white supremacy.
1:01:20 -- Is this historical and economic account of “racism” useful for comparative thinking, both with and beyond the black-white binary? For instance, understanding ethnic and racialized hatred between Dominicans and Haitians, or, further away, can “racial capitalism” be applied to understand China today? Asian American history? What about anti-Semitism?
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
As summer winds down and election season begins to heat up, we reflect on the political prospects of Asian America and the mess that is the Democratic Party. We discuss AOC’s speech at the DNC last week as evidence that the party has lost the thread. We then examine Trump’s WeChat ban and the many uses of this Chinese super app. This leads to a concluding conversation about whether first- and second- (and third-...) generation Asian Americans could trend rightward as part of a racial realignment in both parties.
0:00 – An update on the start of school, the wildfires in northern California, and failed Covid policies.
10:40 – Who said it best? We debate the messaging of the Democrats during last week’s convention and whether the speech by the party’s rising star (and TTSG favorite), AOC, captured the urgency of the moment. Are accusations of elitism fair? Or just bad faith? Also, debater Jay makes his return and recites his own version of a convention speech in an effort to get AOC’s attention.
26:05 – Why WeChat? The Trump administration’s ban on TikTok may claim, as a collateral casualty, the messaging-payment-social-media super app WeChat. The administration doesn’t seem to understand what the app is used for, but it’s clear that a WeChat ban would hurt hundreds of millions of Chinese in China and abroad—and tank iPhone sales in China.
While free-speech concerns are well founded, we consider how WeChat and other Asian apps have been used to organize right-wing diasporic activism, including anti-affirmative-action drives. We revisit Jay’s interview with Viet Thanh Nguyen about first-generation immigrant conservatism—and “Four Prisons,” an essay by Glenn Omatsu, on the rightward turn of earlier Asian activists. (Thanks to listener Naomi Hirahara.)
43:20 – Are we gonna go neocon? Jay worries that, on account of the weird politics around standardized testing and affirmative action, Asian Americans will become more conservative and eventually vote Republican. Is the conservative critique of the Democrats correct: that identity politics have superseded a universal economic focus? Have both parties engaged in a Black/white culture war that leaves many Asians and Latinos bereft? (Caveat: not the Bernie-crats!) Tammy argues that the debate over immigration policy will give the Democrats an edge in the foreseeable future.
Feel free to contact us with comments and questions at @TTSGPod or timetosaygoodbyepod@gmail.com, and please share and subscribe!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
We’re very excited to have Pulitzer Prize winner and Macarthur Genius Grant recipient Viet Thanh Nguyen on the show. There was a lot to discuss and a lengthy conversation that I (Jay) found absolutely fascinating about the role of academia, especially during a time of national protests. A lot of history in this one as well — if you didn’t know about AAPA and Third World Liberation Front, there’s a short primer at the beginning of the episode.
1:05 - A conversation about the promise of the Third World Liberation Front (TWLF), a student movement that started at San Francisco State and UC Berkeley in the late sixties and promised an inclusive, solidarity-based activism rooted in anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism. The TWLF fight resulted ethnic studies programs across California and Viet talks about being an ethnic studies student at Cal in the early 90s and gives an assessment of what has happened over the past forty or so years since the establishment of the TWLF and the AAPA (Asian American Political Alliance).
19:00 - Have Ethnic Studies programs been effective in producing radical thinkers and progressive students? We talk about the early demands of the TWLF, which included a separate school within a school with its own faculty search committee and admissions office.
50:00 - a lengthy discussion about where the focal point of the Asian American identity should lie. Should we talk about immigration and the immigrant experience as much as we do? Or should we think more about where we came from and the effects of American imperialism across Asia? Can Filipinos, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and others find common fighting ground in a renewal of “third world” logic? Or are those efforts nullified by the presence of an upwardly mobile, assimilation-driven class of Asian-Americans?
Thanks for listening!
Jay, Tammy, and Andy
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
In a late-Sunday-night mega-recording session, we discuss the big news of the past week: Kamala Harris, the first major vice presidential candidate who’s Black, Asian American, and a woman. Commentators have tried to pick apart her identity from countless angles: Is she Black enough? Indian enough? Caribbean enough? An Asian-immigrant icon? In other words, the kind of juicy s**t you KNOW your podcast hosts are ALL ABOUT.
0:44 – Our promise to improve TTSG’s audio quality is followed by a recording glitch
1:20 – Updates on Tammy’s temporary life in Montana, Andy’s teaching by Zoom, and Jay’s love of nonstop road trips
9:40 – Who is Kamala Harris?
17:28 – Identity, Act 1: Kamala the politician: Is she a cop? Is she malleable, or does she have a motivating ideology? Also: Jay and Andy award her 30 speaker points for last year’s debates.
26:42 – Identity, Act 2: Is she a second-generation immigrant? Will her familial ties to Jamaica and India (and, briefly, Zambia) matter to West Indian and Asian voters? What can we glean from her strategic and rhetorical uses of immigrantness?
35:30 – “Two or more races”: Why are we so bad at talking about mixed-race identity? Do hapas have privilege because they’re hot?
42:05 – Identity, Act 3: Is she Black? Jamelle Bouie wrote last week that, “because of heritage, upbringing and the realities of American racism, Harris calls herself Black and is also understood as Black by people within and outside the Black community.” ADOS adherents disagree. Is Blackness a matter of choice? Is Blackness international or American?
51:45 – Choice and reparative policies
The Kamala announcement was followed by the DOJ’s accusation that Yale discriminates against white and Asian applicants. Is anti-Asian discrimination like anti-Black discrimination, or is any similarity negated by the apparent fact that Asians “chose” to come to the US? We dissect this concept of choice, which leads us to a theory of Asian identity that’s less about what we have in common than why we’re here in the first place.
1:26:10 – Save the mail!!
A look at the US Postal Service, which has one of the largest, most racially diverse, unionized workforces in the country. It is also a paragon of the types of universal, social-welfare services we should defend vigorously. We unpack the November election theories and distinguish them from troubling long-term trends toward privatization, racist dog whistles, and exploitation by Amazon. Bonus: Tammy achieves her dream of discussing Bureau of Labor Statistics data and the USPS in one segment.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
Radhika talks about her childhood in Ohio, her parents’ emigration from Tamil Nadu (relevant spoiler: an arranged Brahmin marriage), and her scholarly work on post-colonial migration, citizenship, and multiculturalism in Britain. (Bonus: BAME = POC/BIPOC?) She schools Tammy on Portland’s Black and immigrant communities (the city isn’t all white, Radhika softly yells) and describes the local vibe during 74+ days of Black Lives Matter protests.
Then, the discussion (takedown? disquisition?) many TTSG listeners have been waiting for: about the Netflix show “Indian Matchmaking”! Tammy and Radhika talk caste, religion, class, and colorism in the series, media representations of South Asians, and Modi’s bloody transnationalism. Radhika invokes the cultural critic Stuart Hall to question the desire for “cheering fictions” over messy depictions of identity, and looks forward to learning more about Dalit–Black American connections in Isabel Wilkerson’s new book on caste.
* Annihilation of Caste, the 1936 book by Dalit revolutionary B.R. Ambedkar (arguing that inter-caste marriages could never solve the problem of caste; take that, Auntie Sima!)
We have some heady stuff for you this week—on school segregation, the perennial struggle between historians and journalists, and religiosity in Asian America.
0:40 – After a quick update on Tammy’s new life of canoeing in Missoula, Jay describes his roundtrip between Berkeley and Whidbey Island, when he listened to the newest, most Upper West Side podcast ever: “Nice White Parents,” by Chana Joffe-Walt.
We discuss the first three episodes of that series—tldr: the road to hell is paved with good intentions—and the broader contours of education, race, and class in the US. Are Asian students missing from the show’s presentation? Can we distinguish “good integration” from “bad integration”? Do individual choices make a difference, or are government policies all that matter? WTF, Rob?
* An earlier (2015), touchstone series of This American Life, featuring Joffe-Walt and Nikole Hannah-Jones, on school integration in Hartford, Connecticut and Normandy, Missouri.
37:04 – Andy shares a NY Mag interview with public intellectual Adam Tooze, which includes hot takes on the role of history vs. journalism. Is the archive-digger the natural enemy of the reporter? In this hellishly unprecedented(?!) moment, are some disciplines especially relevant? What about the political economy of journalism and academia? Included: the 1619 Project, fascism, and ye olde breakfast foods.
1:08:34 – Listener Jonathan Tang asks why so many East Asians, especially from the upper middle class, seem to be churched. We apply all kinds of anecdata in the search for truth. (Correction: Tammy references Christian missionaries’ visiting Korea by the early 19th century; she meant the late 19th century.)
P.S. – Tammy’s new nightly hike (suckers):
Please support us by subscribing and telling friends and family! Also ask a question to timetosaygoodbyepod@gmail.com or @TTSGPod!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
This week, we mull the Covid-era classroom (fears of contagion and falling behind), the meaning of Trump’s attack on TikTok, Nike-brand kneeling (and not kneeling) in the NBA bubble, and universalism and particularism in the Black Lives Matter uprising.
1:40 – Will Tammy find an Oriental market in Missoula? How does Andy plan to teach through his screen? What will be the impact of these lost semesters on poor and working-class students? Also, should we blame diversity administrators for the collapsing academy?
17:07 – Why is Trump raging against TikTok? Is it because of Sarah Cooper’s impersonations, the Tulsa BTS Army, or his larger vendetta against China? Are we being tricked into siding with a mega-corporation or military state? Further reading: on US fears of the app, Western and Eastern Internets, Microsoft and tech nationalism against China, and whether TikTok is basically just as bad as Facebook. Bonus: Jay reveals his strategy for making Twitter “unusable” through his war with music writers.
35:45 – We discuss Tammy’s recent article probing the tensions within the “POC” label. Are Asians excluded from new euphemisms for ethnic minorities (“Black and brown,” “BIPOC”)? Can we include non-Black perspectives without going “all lives matter”? Could a new political bloc emerge amongst immigrants, especially Latinx and Asian Americans (see recent exchange between Pankaj Mishra and Viet Thanh Nguyen)? Does foundation funding keep domestic and global politics separate? Are we helping the right wing capture the immigrant vote? Bonus: an update on the Portland Wall of Moms.
1:01:10 – Jay advances a Manufacturing Consent thesis: the media’s coverage of BLM has kept public discussion within the boundaries of safe and acceptable topics. This leads to a bro-out over the NBA’s cringey coverage, in which the richest companies in the world have turned “social justice” into a profitable brand. (Also, Jay and Andy are hypocritically watching lots of games.) More generally, should we be optimistic or skeptical about the evolution of progressive politics this summer?
1:17:50 – Our listener question of the week! We’ve heard from some of you that our podcast is one of your first experiences with politically-oriented Asian Americans, in part because you were too busy studying orgo in college (like this comrade). Is there a split between “STEM Asian Americans” and “humanities Asian Americans”?
We can always be reached via @ttsgpod or timetosaygoodbyepod@gmail.com. Tell your friends and family to subscribe!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
Jay plays several TikTok videos of young Asian Americans cooking their favorite dishes. The men seem to adopt a “Black” style of talking, while the women take on a more childlike “kawaii かわいい” tone. What does this say about the personae available to Asian Americans? Is there such a thing as “pan-Asian”—or even Korean, etc.—English? Also, a “Waysian” TikTok blows Andy’s mind.
The feds are still rioting in Portland, Oregon, spurring thousands of locals to fill the streets. The novelist Mitchell S. Jackson, a native of the city, recently described his skepticism about white anarchists in these protests. Contrast this with the big-tent perspective of Kent Ford, founder of Portland’s Black Panthers chapter. What makes a protester, or a protest, really about Black Lives Matter?
47:40 – Good Identity Politics
We’re all big fans of How We Get Freeand other writing by and about the Combahee River Collective. How does this model of Black, queer, socialist feminism apply to our present movement moment? Can we forego an “oppression olympics” for more productive solidarity? Can “identity politics” be redeemed? Also, Tammy’s landline rings.
Please send us comments, questions, corrections!
@ttsgpod + timetosaygoodbyepod@gmail.com
And subscribe!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
2:22 – Jay reveals why he’s been tweeting so much about his 1990s playlist. What was Lilith Fair, and is its feely, anti-corporate model of women’s artmaking still relevant? Plus: Nas and Liz Phair and straw(wo)man Beyoncé.
11:27 – Unidentified federal cops have been brutalizing protesters in Portland, Oregon. In response, a cadre of “Momtifa” Karens has joined with antifa gutter punks on the streets. Why do certain kinds of protesters get a bad rap? What allyships are needed to keep up the BLM momentum? Bonus: Andy posits a theory of Pacific Northwest anarchism.
43:08 – New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently speculated that, because the old system of so-called meritocracy is collapsing, its guardians are jumping ship and embracing the critique of white privilege. Among his examples are the threat of high SAT scores posed by Asian students(!).
Is Douthat right? And are the conditions ripe for a major revolution today?
The three of us have a group therapy session discussing the differences between our parents’ generation, our own, and these new kids’. Were we raised to think “only losers go back to Asia”? If we tried to return to Asia, would we just be cosplaying? Bonus: Tammy recounts her meeting with Jay’s parents.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe
