If You're Not White, You're Colored

One of the scenes in Mississippi Masala that I found particularly intriguing was the one in which one of the Indian men in the motel approaches Demetrius and Tyrone trying to prevent Demetrius from suing for whiplash. It is one of the few (if not the only) instance in which he speaks in favor of solidarity among different minority groups. “As long as you’re not white, you’re colored,” he says. It’s interesting that these sentiments are only brought out when it’s strategically useful, in the context of a financial dilemma. This early scene, in which the idea of cooperation among minorities is exploited for a financial end, criticizes the possibility of genuine third-world solidarity.

I guess the story of the relationship between Mina and Demetrius demonstrates a reach across racial borders in a more genuine way than this manipulation-- and, of course, as the main storyline, this relationship is more important to the overall theme of the film. However, even this model of inter-minority cooperation is full of problems. In order to be together, both Mina and Demetrius have to leave their families, which suggests that their relationship is not possible within the spheres of their communities, and that it can only exist in some isolated limbo land (which is never shown in the film). Their ending isn’t exactly a happy one, or at least not one that holds much suggestion of future success.

As Mississipi Masala suggests, the relationship between the African-American and Asian-American communities is a problematic one. Why is it that two groups with similar histories of mistreatment by the white majority have such trouble getting along? I think a few important differences between these groups contribute to this. First, as we’ve discussed, the African-American community is larger, visible enough to create a black-white racial dichotomy that other races-- including Asians-- have trouble fitting into. Second, a key aspect of the Asian-American experience is the immigrant experience. The stories in Sa-I-Gu are part of a standard trope of the Asian-American narrative: couples who left everything in their home countries to struggle in the Land of Opportunity for their children’s sake.

I was struck by one interview in Sa-I-Gu, in which the woman tells of how she’d expected America to be, essentially, whiter. She’s surprised by the number of Hispanics in her new neighborhood and says she could have believed it was Mexico, but not America. It made me begin to wonder whether the Asian immigrant’s American dream was a _white American dream. This brings up an interesting idea. We’ve talked about the Asian-American as the perpetual foreigner; but this interview suggests that, at least to this Korean-American woman, all other ethnic minorities are just as foreign. If you’re not white, you’re colored-- and, perhaps, not quite American enough.

An early sequence of Sa-I-Gu shows a Korean church singing “Amazing Grace,” a traditional African-American spiritual. This clip perhaps suggests that Asian-Americans and African-Americans have more in common than either community will admit. Watching _Sa-I-Gu reminded me of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, which deals with race in Brooklyn in the late ‘80s. While it mostly deals with black-white relations (no surprise there), the film also addresses tensions between other ethnic groups, and it features a corner grocery owned by a newly immigrated Korean couple. Below are a few clips from Do the Right Thing which focus on the Korean couple (it also includes the looting/burning scene, which I think is pertinent in light of the L.A. riots).  

Especially interesting is the moment in which the mob turns away from the burning, white-owned pizzeria, toward the Korean grocery, and decides to leave it alone after the owner yells, "I'm black! I'm black! You-- me-- same!"  Is this what it takes for people to even consider minority solidarity?  Angry mobs and threats of lawsuits?  Well, if these extreme situations are what it takes, then so be it.

Sa-I-Gu: A Piece Of A Larger Picture

Sa-I-Gu successfully voices the frustration of Korean women who were directly affected by the LA riots.  However, amidst the anger and emotion expressed via film, I became increasingly frustrated with the director's zealous focus on the personal grief of the Korean women as objective and contextual information was never provided as supplementary material.  Despite the valid argument that the sole purpose of the film was to highlight the perspective of Korean women in LA at the time, their perspectives are representative of only one affected segment of the LA population.

From the perspective of the Korean women interviewed for Sa-I-Gu, the United States was no longer a perfect country.  The general sentiment of victimization as scapegoats for African American anger towards Caucasians, abandonment by the LAPD and indifference from city government overall echoed by all the women quickly shattered any preexisting notion of the United States as a great and prosperous nation.  Words infused with anger and pain evoked racist feelings towards the African American community as well as the Caucasian community revealed the high level of tension regarding race relations in Los Angeles and the United States as a whole.  However, Christine Choy did not attempt to expand on this topic and only added a minor addendum after the film ends to very briefly discuss the statements of the Korean women.  There was no additional research material revealed or interviews with academics and others who may have added to a greater understanding of how events spiraled out of control.

The statements in Sa-I-Gu raise questions about how different ethnicities perceive each other and what role the media has to play in the discussion.  Viewpoints tend to vary by generation, upbringing, connection to provocative events such as the LA riots, what individuals filter from media sources and a variety of other factors perhaps too extensive to comprehensively mention in this post.  Nevertheless, films such as Sa-I-Gu must cannot solely rely on the opinions of one particular group without providing sufficient attention to others involved in the situation.  African Americans were rarely interviewed in Sa-I-Gu.  Another issue that arises is a need for self-awareness on the part of the filmmakers.  Choy's film tends to favor the reactionary and emotional at times as opposed to objective and insightful analysis.  Sa-I-Gu had the opportunity to focus on the Korean women while simultaneously offering a holistic view of the riots.  Criticism aside, this film is not without merit.  

Sa-I-Gu allowed viewers to delve into the mindset of Koreans, particularly women, in the aftermath of the LA riots and follow their narratives.  The very existence of the film is another channel for hearing, seeing and understanding Asian and Asian American perspectives in a country whose media generally glosses over this demographic.  Despite the short length of the film, Sa-I-Gu adds to the discourse of race and socioeconomic class relations in the United States and American cities such as Los Angeles.  City politics, economics, the context of the early 1990s, African American and Latino viewpoints in LA, the Caucasian perspective, and an analysis of the culture of the LAPD and city police agencies are the additional pieces to the "puzzle" that are connected to Sa-I-Gu.  All the pieces need to be reflected upon in order to even attempt to answer the never ending question of "why?"   

Structural Racism

Like in Mississippi Masala, Sa-I-Gu’s main conflict is between Asians and blacks, and both movies reveal a pattern in race relations within the United States, one that is restrictive and detrimental to the concept of American identity, whether that is Asian American, African American, Caucasian, or any other American identity. This pattern which I am referring to is the persisting race dichotomy between black and white in the United States. The reasons why enmity still exists between the two groups are various; of course, there is preexisting tension from American history, but one reason mentioned in the movie is socioeconomic difference. Blacks, who are often poorer, are looked down upon by wealthier whites when they commit crimes, and blacks show disdain towards whites for their culture of oppression and their idea of superiority. The relationship between the white community and the black community has an extremely large influence on Asian American identity because often, Asian Americans are forced to “choose” a side.

In Sa-I-Gu for example, I felt that the actions of the African American rioters was them venting out their anger at Asians in proxy for the injustices that felt white society had inflicted on them in the Rodney King case, because they perceived the actions of Asians as similar to those of whites. In many ways, this is true; many Asians tend to look down on blacks as undisciplined and dangerous, but I personally feel that this is more a result of the ethnocentricity of Asian cultures sometimes. After all, China is called “Middle Country” in Chinese for a reason. Regardless of whatever reason, the actions on April the 29th only served to push Asian Americans closer to the “white” side of the racial divide. Many of the woman shopkeepers commented on the fact that they no longer trusted African Americans and that the government should have taken more action to keep African Americans under control.

I feel that this documentary framed Asian Americans justly in portraying them as victims of an entrenched system of racial stereotyping and discrimination, because the existing status of race in the United States is a great barrier to the ability of all groups to move forward. However, I also think that the documentary raised the issue of racial prejudices which Asians might have, but did not discuss it much in any way. While it can be generally accepted that the shopkeepers did not deserve what the rioters did to their properties and livelihoods, it can also be said that the air of disdain (not handing change directly into the hands or not smiling) with which the Korean shopkeepers used in dealing with black customers was also unwarranted. Ultimately, I think things have changed for the better today, as I would not expect a race riot to break out anywhere in the United States right now (though I could be totally mistaken). However, I do believe that prejudices still exist, for reasons that are often archaic and unwarranted, especially when speaking about the prejudices that some Asians have. For that reason, there is still a ways to go.

Sa-I-Gu

I have seen Sa-I-Gu twice and both viewings left me feeling a bit manipulated. The overbearing mood music, the footage of Ed Lee's funeral procession (which seemed highly exploitative of both the viewer and the Lee family) -- it all seemed like a heavy handed attempt at making the audience sympathize with these characters. And unfortunately, what this did for me was force me to look at the characters more critically.

And unfortunately, at least in my case, this attempt yielded the opposite reaction. I started to look at each of the women more critically, less inclined to take their emotions at face value. For example, I wonder about the Korean woman nicknamed "Smiles" for her amicable disposition to her African-American customers. Her words were full of drama, frustration, and sadness--yet her demeanor, at least in my perspective, was, for lack of a better word, "smiley." She wasn't just calm or reserved, but in fact, nearly chipper.

I don't believe my assessment of her is particularly fair, but I do believe that my perspective is fueled directly by the film, an unintended side effect that tarnishes the more emotionally true moments, notably the interviews with Mrs. Lee. Although I still believe there is something very disquieting about "Smiles" and her interviews, I chalk it up to a cultural/generational differences in articulation and communication.

The film's side effect (perhaps only felt by myself?) may be a result of how soon after the riots it was made (the interviews took place only 3 months after). The film seems more like an emotional response and less a thought-out objective response.

Sa-I-Gu and Twilight

I remember being very young and watching footage of Rodney King being beaten on TV, as well as news stories about the riots. I'm not sure why, as a four-year-old, I would remember these things, but I know that after that, I was left with a very clear feeling that my Asian family sided not with the African Americans, but the Asians, regardless of which side was "right" or "wrong".

So it's really interesting for me to watch Sa-I-Gu now, remembering that racial tensions are still strong in the United States, and how my family felt about the riots. The incident definitely became a part of pop culture, in films, in rap music from the West Coast to the East Coast, and in many articles/books written about this period in LA's history. There's still, I feel, residual anger about the riots. While I was watching the TV show LOST a while ago, a black character on the show told a Korean (not Korean American) character that "black people and Korean people just don't get along, don't like each other, in the United States).

I've also watched Anna Deveare Smith's documentary film about the riots, Twilight, and for me, it was even more striking than Sa-I-Gu, because Deveare-Smith manages to portray all her characters so realistically and so honestly; what they say is made more obvious, more bare, because Deveare-Smith is the one who repeats all their words, their actions, their mannerisms. Many of the Korean characters in Twilight express the sentiments and attitudes that the subjects of Sa-I-Gu feel. In both films, as well, I sense that there is a major disconnect between the black and Korean-American communities of LA at the time of the riots -- what explains this barrier of understanding? Cultural differences, racism, or just indifference? I suppose that's the question of all of America's race history.

“Tell the lady in the liquorstore that she's forgiven”

Wow...the “Sai-I-Gu” documentary hit me pretty hard. I hadn’t seen the footage from the riots in a while and it hit home particularly hard when hearing from the perspective of the Korean shopkeepers who had been looted. At the end of the documentary, one of the producers described the LA riots as a “crisis of the American dream,” which I thought was particularly fitting. Looting and rioting is such a powerful image of anarchy and social disillusionment. It’s shocking to think that the LA riots took place in the United States less than twenty years ago.

I was surprised that the documentary failed to cover the murder of Latasha Harlins, which was an important catalyst for the LA Riots and the resentment of the Black community towards Korean shopkeepers. On March 16, 1991 (a little over a year before the LA Riots), Harlins, a 15-year-old black girl, was shot in the head by a female Korean storeowner, Soon Ja Du. The storeowner mistook Harlins for shoplifting, a scuffle broke out between them, and Harlins was shot fleeing the store, which was all captured on the store’s security camera. Even more shocking was Du sentence for Harlins’ murder on November 15, 1991 (a couple of months before the riots): 5 years' probation, 400 hours of community service, and a $500 fine. Yes, this was Du’s sentence for murdering Latasha Harlins. While, several of the shopkeepers interviewed referred to the deep-seeded tension and resentment between Koreans and blacks that had always existed in LA, the Harlins murder cannot be overlooked.

The Latasha Harlins murder is also mentioned in 2Pac’s “Thugz Mansion,” a reference that until now went completely over my head:

Dear momma don't cry, your baby boy's doin good
Tell the homies I'm in heaven and they ain't got hoods

Little LaTasha sho' grown
Tell the lady in the liquorstore that she's forgiven, so come home

I found myself wondering during the documentary about who was to blame for the LA riots and my thoughts kept returning to the media. Would the Rodney King beating have been so sensational if the footage had not been featured day and night on every mass media? The media also played a role in villanization of the Korean shopkeepers during the riots featuring images of shopkeepers guarding their stores from looters on the roof. In the opening scene, the producers of the film discuss the 3 images of Koreans circulating on the media during the riots: 1) the Harlins’ murder, 2) crying shopkeepers after being looted, and 3) armed Koreans on the roof. I struggle to see how such representation of Koreans during the riots did not further exacerbate the racial tensions leading to the riots in the first place.

More thoughts on Asian and Black relations: there were a lot of connections between the “Sai-I-Gu” documentary and Oliver Wang’s piece on Asian American rappers in Alien Encounters. In his essay Wang laments that “Asian Americans are expected to cast their allegiance with one of the two dominant American racial poles” and as a result Asian American rappers fail to succeed in a dominantly black medium facing the issues of authenticity and racialization of their hip hop. This racial tension can be seen playing out directly in the rap battles between Black artist Sterling and the Asian artist Jin.

Throughout the documentary, the Korean shopkeepers discussed the resentment they felt from their Black customers as being “whitewashed” and not fitting into the Black-White dichotomy that Wang mentions in his essay. The same sense of betrayal that Koreans felt towards the blacks in the documentary is felt by Asian American rappers, such as Jin, who struggle to be recognized in hip hop. I guess the bigger question is: where do these tensions come from and what purpose have they ever served?

More information about Latasha Harlins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins

Sa-I-Gu

I find it interesting that this film limits its perspective to that of Korean women, isolating its story from the bigger story of the L.A. riot. I do understand that the film essays to "give voice to the voiceless," but at the same time I feel like it is isolating Koreans from the rest of the conflict and portraying them as innocent bystanders who got caught in the maelstrom of black-white racial conflict. I'm sure many of them are innocent victims, but I find it hard to believe that all of them are. 

An interesting way to look at the L.A. riot is to say that this was the first time that Korean Americans as a whole community got in touch with the bigger society. As one woman says in the movie, at first the Rodney King incident seemed like it did not matter to Koreans, and only when protesters began attacking Korean-owned shops they realized that it was their problem too. It is not too harsh to say that most Koreans (unlike the man in the movie playing Santa Claus with local black children) were uninvolved with the larger American society for the most part. Most lived in enclaves speaking Korean, reading Koran newspapers and interacting with mostly with other Koreans. The majority of interactions between Koreans and blacks took place at the stores, where animosity began growing. I feel like the stores in predominantly black neighborhoods were especially heavily targeted because their residents resented the fact that Koreans made money in black neighborhoods and lived in a Korean neighborhood. 

I have mixed feelings about the movie: while I do sympathize with those women who lost their business and family (for they worked so hard to realize the American dream), the fact that most Koreans in the movie do not try to understand why the rioters attacked their stores bothers me a bit. 

okay, so i tried really hard to write an unbiased account/review of watching sa-i-gu, but my family lived the LA riots right in the middle of koreatown when this happened, and i just can't watch this film without ...i dont know, without getting angry... hehe ^^;; sorry i'll calm down.

but, no, seriously. i was 5 years old at the time and this was a huge deal, clearly. the documentary, i believe, was too easy on the whole ordeal. i've heard so many stories from so many adults who lived in koreatown at the time.

a couple things i wished the film would focus more on was explicating the racial relationships at the time, and looking at the overall social problems that caused the riots. i'm really appreciative of the individual interviews and i think they did a good job at showing the effects that the riots had on the korean community, but i think the film did not make the big impact it could've because the point of view was so narrow.

the part about the "sacrificial lamb" interested me the most, like many other posters, because this is exactly what all koreans say and believe post-riots.

geographically, los angeles is very spread out, with thick populations of racial/ethnic groups juxtaposed right next to each other, except that when you look closely, there is never a white neighborhood right next to a black one. koreatown happens to be closer the south central/inglewood where most of the rodney king protestors came from, and therefore served as a buffer region to the rich white residential areas of hancock park, beverly hills, westwood, and beyond.

the riots lasted 6 days. in the history of american riots especially involving race, even during the 60s (civil rights movement etc) when a riot like this was happening, there were times when the president would send in the national guard to prevent the attacks from continuing further on. now i'm not saying that mr. bush sr. is to blame for everything for not sending in the us marines to stop all the looting and burning, but the film, in my opinion, did not emphasize enough the lack of action on part of the police and higher enforcement authorities when it came to stopping the riots and protecting businesses in koreatown, etc.

koreans believe that the police did nothing because they were the sacrificial lambs, just like the lady in the film said. when i asked korean adults about the black-korean conflict, they said no-- this was a black-white conflict where koreans were caught in between and incurred most of the damage. the police/authorities could have stopped a lot of the violence from happening, but using 'my-safety-first' as an excuse, they let the protestors/los angelenos who have been suffering from the economic/racial crisis in the past decade let out all their frustration on the nearby korean business community.

okay, so i'm getting really worked up again, and me posting this stuff doesnt mean it's the exact truth, but people are not stupid, and the korean community knew that there was something wrong with the duration of the riots, and how they received practically no help in protecting themselves, to the point where the local gunshop owner was giving out guns for free and pest control exterminators were voluntarily spraying toxins in shops to keep looters out.

most korean american community who suffered most of the attacks were permanently traumatized by this experience, albeit on different levels. some people lost their entire life savings and means of survival, and some people just came to the cold hard realization that america did not care for this immigrant group with so noncitizens and illegal immigrants.

on the 10th anniversary of the LA riots, Bush Jr. visited the African American community to apologize, to reminisce, to acknowledge the woes of the time in that community and to celebrate the improving relations/economy in those areas. he did not even make a phonecall to the koreans.

i want to stop talking here because its difficult not to just keep rambling but about the film again, i really wish it would have taken the interviews to the next level to see the point of view of the black and mexican american communities and also do more research on why it had to be the koreans that were targetted. i know some women in the film said that koreans were targetted because of the koreans' curt and rude attitudes towards their african american customers, but honestly this hasnt changed that much today. this was not the root of the riots--it was just because the media portrayed it as a black-korean conflict.

i am not saying that there was no black korean conflict, there was, there is, as long as our cultures are so different and there is a language barrier there always be a little amount of conflict no matter was ethnicities cross. this is where 'popular culture' comes in a theme because so much of popular culture did present the riots as a gun-toting-korean versus tv-stealing-black-looter problem. it would be interesting if we can examine the aftereffects in popular media regarding the interracial conflict of the la riots, ie. ice cube's black korea and the korean community's boycott of his products afterwards.

thank you and sorry if you read through all of that. ^^;;; just saying, because somebody's gotta remember.

Response: Sa-i-gu

First of all, I was very interested to view Sa-i-gu, as I had not heard a lot about the influence of the Watts riots on Korean Americans. However, while I found the personal interviews the three producers conducted interesting and engaging, I didn't feel that I had gained a broader understanding of how the riots affected Korean Americans as a whole. These narratives, while poignant, were highly personal and left me wondering to what extent I could generalize these women's impressions. In light of this, I worried that the effect of the film would merely be to elicit sympathy and not to inspire a deeper understanding.

That being said, I was impressed with the analysis of the situation offered by the women interviewed. I think it would be easy for the victims to misguidedly take this as an excuse to hate all black people, but none of the women interviewed seemed to do so. On the contrary, their reactions seemed to indicate a more complicated understanding, and hence a more interesting one.

Even so, in the end I'm still not sure what to make of this film, and I seemed to sense similar reactions from others. I look forward to discussing/reading what other people thought.

Sa-i-gu Response

I thought this was a great addition to the list of films and documentaries we have watched, as it addressed the LA. riots through a viewpoint that was excluded from the media coverage during the riots. As the filmmakers note before the documentary, the main portrayals of Korean Americans during the riots were of storekeepers holding guns to keep their property safe and of a Korean American storekeeper shooting an African American in the back of the head. This documentary is a response to those media images, hoping to bring to light the emotional experiences of Korean Americans in proof that they did care about human life, and did not discard human life for the sake of their property. The viewpoints of the women interviewed were varied, which provided for an interesting backdrop to their experience of the riots.

One viewpoint that I found interesting was when one woman compared the Korean Americans to “sacrificial lambs” in an expression of her frustration over how the LAPD did not take any action during the looting of the Korean American stores. I found this statement summarized the racial tensions expressed among the Korean Americans, African Americans, and white people that were a huge part of the riots. I can only imagine how Korean Americans felt when watching media coverage, as looters raided stores with police officers standing and watching nearby. With police officers usually acting as symbols of peace and protection, their inactivity during the riots led to a crisis in the Korean women’s hopes of coming to America to give their children a better life. There were varied responses from the women when talking about African Americans, as some seemed aware that there were negative views of Koreans from African Americans while others were more upset over the police inactivity and blamed other races. One woman almost seemed to blame other Koreans for treating African American customers poorly, as she emphasized that storekeepers need to be a part of the community, which includes placing money in customers’ hands and bagging all of their goods. After the credits, the filmmakers address the fact that some of the comments in the documentary are racist, as they believe that by leaving these views in as opposed to editing it out will provoke discussion and reexamination of personal views. I agree with their point of view, for nothing about race relations could have been discussed if the filmmakers had sugarcoated and edited out these views. Since these women were interviewed only three months after the riots happened, their emotions still run strong, as seen by some of the things they say in their interviews. They are still in shock that their life earnings that went towards a store are completely gone, which could lead to an unearthing of their frustrations and taking it out on others as a result.

Although this documentary focused solely on Korean American women, it did bring up aspects that I thought would be interesting to explore more thoroughly. For example, one woman talks about how her African American employees called and told her to stay at home, and that they would try to protect the store as best as they could. I wanted to learn more about these people, as it seems they sat right at the axis between Korean and African American tensions. What were their views of the riots?