At 10:44 AM on June 29th, 2023, the Supreme Court overturned race-conscious college admissions in the United States. It marked the end of over fifty years of legal precedent, at once removing the Kennedy-Johnson policy aimed at addressing the centuries-long economic exploitation faced by people of color in the United States. 

Race-conscious admissions were part of a wave of new laws during the civil rights era in the 60’s that helped end legal discrimination, and marked the beginning of attempts to close the racial wealth gap. The policy allowed minority students, who came from predominantly under-funded public schools and disparate socio-economic conditions, a fighting chance to help pull their communities out of poverty by attending elite institutions that were not originally built for them. These admissions policies – dubbed affirmative action –  were transformative for student diversity, as it not only helped create accessibility to prestigious schools, but it allowed for Black, Asian, Latinx, and Indigenous people to have a voice in copious amounts of university-funded research – research that influences laws, policies, and our understanding of society and history. Yet after its implementation, race-conscious admissions was met for decades with vitriol, as it was conveniently framed by its opponents as providing “unfair advantages” to students of color in the college admissions process. But this perspective completely disregards the nuance of the issue that race-conscious admissions tries to address. 

An unfair advantage is being able to retake the SAT as many times as you need until you get the score you want, simply because you can afford to do it. An unfair advantage is the luxury of taking AP classes because your school has the funds to provide them. An unfair advantage is being able to take endless extracurriculars because you aren’t responsible for providing extra income for your family. (Yet the system doesn’t recognize these economical advantages as unfair.)

Most students accepted through race-conscious admissions practices have had to face similar socio-economic struggles, while still performing excellently in the context of their academic environment and the sparse resources they have at their disposal. Affirmative action isn’t just colleges allowing unqualified students of color to walk through their doors as they please. Affirmative action, racially, is universities looking at their applicants from a holistic perspective, and deliberately seeking greater representation in predominantly White institutions. Something that the Supreme Court, by stopping academic institutions from considering race, has ended permanently in the United States.

 But the type of affirmative action with the most impact in elite universities has always been, and still is, legacy students. There has always been a quota of students prioritized in the admissions process, (as revealed by records from the Department of Education during the SCOTUS trial, showing that legacy students are 6 times more likely to get into Harvard) simply because they are a key part of the multi-billion dollar endowments supporting elite universities. In its decision, the Supreme Court, while striking down race-conscious admissions, allowed for the continuation of legacy admissions, which accounts for almost 25% of admitted students (over double the acceptance of the former). 

The movement to end affirmative action, which was predominantly led by White Americans, had been gaining traction for several decades, but it wasn’t until the 2010s that they were able to find an audience as a means to reach their goal: Asian Americans. By the end of the civil rights era, many minority groups championed affirmative action, from Black, Latinx, and Asian American communities, to Indigenous and Arab communities. But during the last decade, East Asian Americans became the face of the anti-race conscious admissions movement, as it allowed for wealthier and White anti-affirmative action activists to claim that this issue was cross-racial. The problem with this is that affirmative action also benefits Asian Americans. The AAPI community is not a monolith, and should not be treated as such. Race-conscious admissions have for the last fifty years helped bring in a more diverse student body that have included underrepresented AAPI groups, such as Vietnamese, Filipino, and Palestinian students (and other various racial and ethnic groups in the AAPI diaspora). 

Certain demographics of the AAPI community such as South Asian, Korean, and Japanese Americans have not benefited from race-conscious admission, simply because they fall under the wealthiest income bracket in the United States. This is not to say that they don’t face socio-political discrimination, but it allows us to recognize how they also benefit from economic privilege through the college admissions process. Even when East Asian American students face rejection from these universities, it isn’t because of race-conscious admissions (which accounts for less than 10% of admitted students). It’s because of the uncomfortable fact that wealthier demographics within the AAPI diaspora have had the economic resources to create extremely competitive applications that have led them to be over-represented in these institutions. In contrast, lower-income demographics who identify as AAPI are underrepresented, and are more in need of race-conscious affirmative action. Because this is not just a racial issue, but a class one as well. 

The recent Supreme Court ruling has incited a larger cultural re-examination of the college admissions process, but there is one critical element that has widely been ignored: the prep-school to elite university pipeline. Attending a prep school can be life-changing, and has widely been described as the entrance ticket to the college of your dreams. As top-notch academics with average prices ranging from $16,000 to over $50,000, they’re often the gateway for wealthy students looking for a way into the Ivies. But prep schools have also been a key tool to cultivate diversity – some of the best prep schools in the nation, such as Andover Academy, have made it their mission to enroll students from lower-income and diverse backgrounds, welcoming them in with full scholarships. While we should praise the rapid diversification within these prep-schools over the last two decades, the issue still lies with the disparate advantages that students who attend these prep schools have over those who attend public schools. Only 14% of high school students in the United States attend a preparatory boarding school, and yet they make up over 35% of the admitted students at Harvard University, with similar percentages at Stanford, UC Berkeley, Duke, and the rest of the Ivies. Students at these schools, in addition to getting a world-class education, have other drastic advantages, like college counselors with connections to elite colleges, or access to exclusive networking opportunities with college admissions officers.

The Supreme Court decision has led to deeply positive and negative reactions within the AAPI diaspora, but one thing is clear: getting rid of race-conscious decisions will not result in an increase in acceptance of Asian Americans. The pipeline of legacy and prep-school students to elite colleges will remain very much intact, creating an overwhelmingly high-income student body. The decision unravels one of the very few efforts made by the United States to recognize and repair the damage made from centuries-long systemic discrimination, and will only exacerbate the class system in the United States.  

The post The Boarding School to Elite University Pipeline: What Legacy Admissions Means for Affirmative Action first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post The Boarding School to Elite University Pipeline: What Legacy Admissions Means for Affirmative Action appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The Broad in Los Angeles, The Tate in London, The Art Institute of Chicago, and The Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Visit any one of these reputable museums and you will witness the breadth and ingenuity of Yayoi Kusama’s artwork. A multidisciplinary artist from Matsumoto, Japan, Kusama has worked continuously to create an admirable career that has earned her international recognition and admiration. Her work has inspired other notable artists of the century such as Andy Warhol and Claes Oldenburg, and she’s followed guidance from Georgia O’Keeffe. 

Despite her extraordinary influence, Kusama is not loved by all as she has sparked intense criticism for racist comments and offensive depictions of the Black community. 

Born on March 22, 1929, Kusama had unsteady relationships with her parents and experienced hallucinations growing up. At 13 years old, she worked in a military factory during World War II. These experiences inspired various aspects of her later artwork and art served as a cathartic outlet for her frustrations. Kusama studied Nihonga, a traditional Japanese painting style, for a year at the Kyoto City University of Arts. She presented six solo exhibitions in Japan before moving to New York. Motivated by the growing amount of American abstract works, she left Japan in 1958 and embraced less conservative art styles of the time, later becoming a leader of the avant-garde movement. 

A pioneer of contemporary compositions, Kusama pushes boundaries for both types of art and the content behind them. Her works explore themes of sexuality, feminism, mental health, surrealism, and more. Some of her most famous pieces are her reflective “Infinity Rooms,” typically filled with her signature polka dots and repetitive patterns. She quickly became a leader and respected figure in the avant-garde movement and has revolutionized the art scene as a whole. Kusama has paved the way for women, especially women of color, in the art world. Her innovative use of various mediums and emphasis on interactive art has inspired other artists to create works that transgress conventional standards. An international sensation, Kusama’s impact is also commemorated in the Yayoi Kusama Museum in Shinjuku, Tokyo, and her work is displayed in notable museums all over the world. 

Along with her contributions to creating gender equity in the art world, some have credited Kusama as a strong advocate for racial solidarity due to her protests against the glorification of White artists in both Japan and the United States. However, many of her actions and writings contradict that title. According to Hyperallergic Magazine, an online publication focused on analyzing modern art, in her 2002 autobiography, Infinity Net, Kusama “consistently wrote about Black people as primitive, hyper-sexualized beings.” She describes her previous neighborhood of residence in New York as a “slum” that continuously lost market value due to “black people shooting each other out front, and homeless people sleeping there.” Her novel, The Hustler’s Grotto of Christopher Street, “is full of grotesque and voyeuristic depictions of Black characters’ smell and genitalia.” In the script for Tokyo Leee, Kusama describes a Black character as a “WILD-looking, hairy, coal-black savage”, but describes a White character simply with “blonde hair and blue eyes.” Her perpetuation of Black stereotypes and dehumanization in her writing limits the extent of her “efforts” to combat racial inequality.  

Despite Kusama’s global fame, she has faced little public criticism for these aspects of her career. In the English translation of Infinity Net, the sentence describing Black people was omitted displaying an effort to purify Kusama’s image. Kusama’s problematic behaviors do not negate the positive influences her work has made and some may argue that people should be able to separate the art from the artist. However consumers and creators themselves have a responsibility to hold other artists accountable for their actions so that their work can be truly appreciated by all audiences. Kusama remains one of the most influential artists of her time, however to accurately portray her legacy, all aspects of her career must be properly addressed by the art world. 

The post The Controversy Behind Yayoi Kusama first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post The Controversy Behind Yayoi Kusama appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post Soaring Bird first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post Soaring Bird appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

Google CEO: Sundar Pichai

Sundar Pichai was born in 1972 in Tamil Nadu, India. He completed a majority of his schooling in India, attending IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) Kharagpur, which is amongst the most prestigious universities in India. Sundar then came to the United States to complete his Masters in Material Science and Engineering at Stanford University, and his MBA at the University of Pennsylvania. After some experience in product management, he was appointed as a manager at Google in 2004. Pichai and his team were heavily involved in the development of Google Chrome – currently the most-used web browser. He is recognized for his ability to build strong teams that work together and add to each other’s ideas, instead of invalidating one another. In addition, his outstanding decision-making skills have largely contributed to numerous Google products’ success launched under his leadership. Sundar Pichai is now CEO of both Google and Alphabet Inc. (the parent company of Google).

Microsoft CEO: Satya Nadella

Satya Nadella was born in 1967 in Hyderabad, India. He spent most of his childhood in Hyderabad, and received his undergraduate degree at Mangalore University for electrical engineering. When he moved to the United States he completed his Masters in Computer Science at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Following a short tenure at Sun Microsystems Inc., Nadella joined Microsoft. His journey up the corporate ladder was stable, yet groundbreaking every step of the way. When he was appointed the title of CEO, Microsoft was reasonably behind its competitors in the advancement of their products. However, Nadella was not one to back down from a challenge. He integrated the cloud-computing platform which transformed the company like never before, incorporating Office 365, Bing, and Xbox Live. This cloud-computing platform streamlined Microsoft to beat Google in revenues, Netflix in subscribers, and pushed Google’s net value to the trillion dollar mark. Satya Nadella’s “best career advice” is the philosophy he lives by: “Don’t wait for your next job to do your best work.” 

Zoom Founder & CEO: Eric Yuan

Eric Yuan was born in 1970 in Taian, China. He lived in China until he was 27 years old, attending China Shandong University of Science and Technology for his undergraduate degree, and University of Mining and Tech for his Masters. Before arriving in Silicon Valley in 1997, his visa applications were denied 8 times in a row. Regardless, Yuan did not give up, and at his 9th attempt he was successful. Along his early corporate journey, he completed an MBA at Stanford Business School in 2006. Zoom was undeniably one of the most vital resources during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it has continued to remain a staple in communications to this day, especially in education and corporate settings. Zoom has increased the productivity of working from home, making work more convenient in stringent situations. It has allowed many universities to offer online courses and degrees, making education more accessible. Eric Yuan’s resilience created a company that has created a whole new world of communication, maintaining and strengthening personal bonds even during the largest global pandemic.

These Asian American leaders’ consistent determination, innovation, and competence has completely revolutionized the way we interact with the digital world. Disrupting cultural barriers, societal expectations, and stereotypes, they have defied the odds; inspiring generations to come. 

The post Illuminating Asian American Leaders in the Technology Industry first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post Illuminating Asian American Leaders in the Technology Industry appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

Is MSG actually bad for you?

The FDA has classified MSG as generally safe, and yet, 42% of American consumers actively avoid MSG. The misconception that MSG is unhealthy is not driven by rigorous, reliable research, but rather, anti-Asian sentiment and xenophobia.

What is MSG?

Monosodium glutamate, or MSG, is a common food additive used as a flavor enhancer. It is a seasoning often found in processed foods and Asian cuisine. Its association with Chinese food comes from a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine entitled, “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.”

Asian Hate

Because of “Chinese restaurant syndrome,” many consumers negatively associate MSG with Chinese cuisine. Although MSG is present in many kinds of foods, its association with Chinese cuisine has turned it into a negative racist stereotype.

Debunking The Myth

The original letter to the New England Journal of Medicine was mostly conjecture, and several studies have debunked “Chinese restaurant syndrome.” Any health complications associated with MSG are not from MSG itself, but rather, the processed foods it is added to.

The Stakes

Asian hate crimes have risen significantly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just like with MSG, coronavirus became negatively associated with Chinese Americans and contributed to persisting racial stereotypes. Debunking the MSG myth reveals one of the many instances of internalized xenophobia in America.

The Bottom Line

MSG is not a health hazard. Asian hate is.

Understanding the truth about MSG demonstrates how deeply rooted xenophobia is in America.

Original graphic: https://create.piktochart.com/output/9010094ccd12-msg-research-poster-final-draft

Previous draft of graphic (contains more writing): 

The post MSGs and Xenophobia: A One-Pager first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post MSGs and Xenophobia: A One-Pager appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

My parents’ diets have significantly changed throughout their lives. They grew up eating vegetarian, home-cooked Indian meals,  but as they adjusted and assimilated to America, they began to incorporate meat and fast food into their diets. During my lifetime, I have never struggled with food insecurity, but my parents did upon immigration to the United States in their late childhoods. Especially in the predominantly White areas where they settled, there was little access to the grains, vegetables and spices that made up their daily meals in India. Fresh foods were overall more expensive and weren’t the reasonable options to purchase during grocery store runs. My dad has told me of how his school lunches would often consist of white bread occasionally containing a filling such as cheap lunch meat, or leftover Indian food, which prompted teasing and bullying. Sustenance became a topic of shame, reflecting and reminding of poverty, of a new country, and of their inability to take care of themselves – a broken food system hidden within the immigrant struggle. 

Food insecurity continues to be a major public health issue in the United States and is more prevalent among minority, poor and immigrant communities. Despite the model minority myth, which defines the Asian American community as affluent and high achieving, this is not the case within our diverse and expansive diaspora. Asian Americans come from more than 20 countries, speaking countless languages and carrying unique cultural traditions. Oftentimes, these different subcategories of the Asian American community are grouped together and individual experiences are erased. Not every Asian American subgroup has the same resources or experiences. Our community is not homogeneous. Society assumes that due to the perceived wealth status of Asian Americans, we do not struggle with health issues. This is internalized within our community, creating shame and fear of admitting burdens; Asians are less likely to seek out aid or report their struggles, impacting their quality and receipt of care. In a national survey published by the National Library of Medicine, Asian Americans were less likely to receive counseling and less likely to report positive interactions with their doctors than white participants. Compared to other racial and ethnic groups, Asian Americans are least likely to report having a personal doctor. In fact, 19.4% of Asian adults compared to 12.9% of whites report being without a usual source of health care.

Lack of research regarding food access in our communities has led to an underreporting of this issue. But food sustains our communities and is more than just a requirement of survival. It creates connections and gives us threads of our histories to hold onto. 

Factors that contribute to food insecurity are language spoken at home, knowledge/accessibility to food aid, and immigration status. Though there is a limited amount of research available, speaking English or speaking a foreign language corresponds to hunger in homes. Data collected by KFF summarizes that 16% of Asian people reported that no one in the household aged 14 and older spoke English well, compared to only 1% of white people. Overall, Asians tend to have households that speak languages other than English. The study concluded that the highest prevalence of food insecurity was found among the Vietnamese subgroup (16.42%) and lowest among the Japanese subgroup (2.28%). Similarly, the Vietnamese subgroup had the highest prevalence of speaking only a foreign language at home (52.36%) whereas among the Japanese it was the lowest (4.95%). Furthermore, among the Chinese subgroup, speaking a language other than English at home was associated with 7.24 times higher prevalence of being food insecure, as compared to speaking English only. The connection is disheartening. Is assimilation required for households to have equal access to food? 

Asian people have the highest number of non-citizens at 26%. In general, non-citizen immigrants are more likely to be uninsured than citizens and face increased barriers to accessing health care and food. Citizenship is a determinant for services necessary to survive. The ability of an immigrant to adapt and adjust is one of the biggest factors of food insecurity. Those who struggle to adapt fare worse in terms of receiving routine care and screening services, home ownership, crowded housing, food deserts, and childhood experiences with racism. These factors are associated with poor mental health, poor diet, and poor physical and cognitive development. And for those who attempt to assimilate, displacement and alienation from heritage culture is associated with worse physical and mental health among Asian Americans. A study in California by the California Health Interview Survey realized that Asian immigrants would not turn to a food assistance program for help and often considered them as a last option, often due to “limitations of culturally appropriate food items and culturally-associated stigma as such opportunities are often considered “handouts”’. 

I believe that a lack of research and attention on this topic impedes on the ability of Asian Americans to live healthy sustainable lives in the United States. This is an opportunity to create public health efforts with collaboration between healthcare organizations and Asian American communities to address this hidden issue, especially because food symbolizes our pride and identity. 

The post Asian American Food Struggles: The Immigrant Narrative of Nutrition first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post Asian American Food Struggles: The Immigrant Narrative of Nutrition appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

Race-conscious affirmative action is one of the most contentious issues regarding higher education. As an Asian-American, I strongly believe in ensuring diversity but I believe that race-conscious admission practices do more harm than good and there are race-neutral practices to ensure diversity that should be used. 

Simply put, the color of your skin shouldn’t make you more or less likely to get into college. Your merits and skills should be why you get into a certain school. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 2000 anti-AAPI discrimination in voting rights case, Rice v. Cayetano: “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Fundamentally, affirmative action requires colleges to look at a person’s race and make substantive judgments about that person, which is by nature discriminatory, because it judges someone based on the color of their skin. You would not want a person offered a job because they are Asian, white, Black, or Hispanic; you would want them getting a job because they are the most qualified for the job. 

When colleges admit students on the basis of race, they are treating racial groups homogenously and assume they all have similar or the same experience. Justice Clarence Thomas writes in his concurrence that an individual is and should be bigger than their race. He argues that affirmative action stereotypes POC groups: “All racial groups are heterogeneous, and blacks are no exception… Eschewing the complexity that comes with individuality may make for an uncomplicated narrative, but lumping people together and judging them based on assumed inherited or ancestral traits is nothing but stereotyping.” 

Justice Thomas is accurate in his judgment here; as an Asian-American, I have not lived the same life as my other Asian peers and we can not be simply grouped because we have the same skin color. By lumping people together and grouping them because of the color of their skin, colleges are diminishing the experiences of each individual. I, as a Chinese-American, do not have the same experience as a Korean-American or an Indian-American, or a Filipino-American. 

Additionally, affirmative action easily reinforces harmful stereotypes. The underlying assumption in justifying affirmative action is that certain racial groups need more help in getting into selective schools, which leads to the idea that some races are just better than others and that is why we need to be helping them. In reality, equal opportunity is offered to people of all races and this mindset only further pushes down minorities by telling them that they are in need of extra help instead of actually helping them out.

In the same vein, to ensure a fully merit-based system, we must abolish legacy and children of donor-based admissions, as both Democrats and Republicans have advocated for in the wake of the Supreme Court decision; college admissions should be based on your merits and experiences not who your parent is and how much they can donate. In a simulation conducted by Students for Fair Admissions, a world where Harvard eliminated legacy admissions and emphasized the socio-economic status of applicants resulted in increased admission rates for POC candidates.

Finally, on a college campus, diversity should be valued based on a student’s experiences and contributions, rather than on the color of their skin. Renu Mukherjee, a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, emphasizes in the New York Times that diversity in higher education “should encompass all aspects of a student’s personhood that could contribute to the educational environment.” This means that colleges should consider the unique stories of individuals and the experiences they have had to genuinely ensure intellectual diversity in their institutions. Through this emphasis on intellectual diversity, colleges will ensure the necessary diversity without employing harmful practices.  

The post The Case Against Affirmative Action first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post The Case Against Affirmative Action appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

On June 21, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid a visit to the White House. President Biden and his family welcomed him with ceremony and showered him with gifts, hosting him for private and state dinners after multiple speeches on the White House lawn. This visit was intended by the Biden administration to underscore the two countries’ strong partnership, since the US sees India as a crucial ally in the effort to curb China’s power. The two leaders met in private to discuss the future of their economic partnership. Indian-Americans from all over watched from the crowd on the lawn or on their phones, wondering what this signified for their futures.

Some of the Indian diaspora sees this grand welcome as a great sign of progress, because India has never been afforded this type of respect on the world stage before. India has been an important economic player for decades because of its massive population, much of which is working-age and speaks English. But it has a long history of being taken advantage of by world powers, both during British colonialism and in its weakened state after independence. It has never been truly in the midst of things, so such a warm welcome from the global superpower that is the United States is a sign that India’s global status has risen. 

Receiving this type of acknowledgement and respect also means the American population has started to know and care more about India. Indian Americans who grew up here have been dealing with ignorant stereotypes about cab drivers, IT workers, and spicy food for decades. Almost one-fifth of the world’s population has been dismissed or mocked by people who don’t know enough about the country or its residents. Biden’s enthusiastic welcome of Modi could provoke change in Americans, bringing about more awareness and respect for India.

PM Modi is well-liked by the majority of India’s population. He is the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, which directly translates to the “Indian people’s party,” and his leadership has been focused on the common man. In the aftermath of British colonialism, India’s progress was often slow and stilted. Modi’s administration led to decreasing poverty rates, improving infrastructure, and a generally higher quality of life. His stance on foreign policy boosted the country’s economy after he put India on the map as a global power and strengthened international relations. In the 9 years since Modi’s election, India has gained more security and recognition, which for the world’s most populous nation, has been long overdue.

However, the prime minister is not as benevolent as he may appear. Recently, he’s come into increased scrutiny by human rights groups. Modi is a strong promoter of Hindu nationalism, and his policies have created a deepening divide between Hindus and Muslims in India. Tensions between the two groups have existed since before the Partition in 1947—the bloody division of India, following its independence from Britain, into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.

Modi’s election in 2014 has further strained their relationship. Angry mobs have burned down both Muslim mosques and Hindu temples, and lynched or murdered people of the other religion, while Modi has been notably silent about this violence. In fact, in 2005 as Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi was banned from entering the United States for “violations of religious freedom” because of his complicity during Hindu mobs’ violent retaliation against Muslim attacks. Modi also furthers his Hindu nationalist goals systemically: he’s perpetuated discrimination in employment and housing, changed historic Muslim city names to Hindu ones, and censored articles and reporters who criticize him. Muslims have less representation than ever; today, they hold only 5% of seats in the Indian parliament—the lowest percentage in history—though they make up 14.2% of the total population.

These human rights concerns make the prime minister more controversial among Indian Americans than their counterparts living in India. While many applaud his foreign affairs and economic policies, Muslim Indian Americans often feel like their religion, culture, and livelihood are in danger. NBC says the Indian American diaspora’s approval rating of Modi is less than two-thirds of what it is back in India. Why such a big difference? For immigrants raised in the US, it may be that the values that have been pushed since birth, like freedom, liberty, and equality, are ingrained into the mind. Second-generation immigrants often have differing political views from older generations as a product of the more progressive environment they grew up in. “College-educated young people who grew up in the U.S. are distancing themselves from Modi’s politics,” says Ajit Sahi of the Indian American Muslim Council.

Many Indian Americans living in the States also see India’s foreign policy differently because of the US’s Western or European political alignment. Modi and his administration have a nonalignment policy and want to distance themselves from a Eurocentric worldview, choosing to hold their own views while having allies in various, sometimes opposing, world powers, like the US and Russia. Indian Americans are undoubtedly influenced by US politics, and might not always agree with Modi’s stance. But they are much more critical of Modi’s anti-democratic leanings, which threaten India’s status as a secular state and its prided tradition of free speech and press.

Biden’s administration was asked by human rights groups to address India’s humanitarian concerns with Modi in their meeting and act as a push in the other direction. Spokespersons have said the issue was not addressed, and the meeting instead focused on the two countries’ new partnership. The probable reason for the US administration’s hesitance to bring the topic up is the States’ own democratic backslide, which unlike India’s, has received wide coverage. The past few years have been rife with events highlighting the human rights concerns in America (the murder of George Floyd and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to name a few). If President Biden addressed India’s problems he could quickly be dismissed as hypocritical or racist. This situation could mean that instead of both nations calling each other out for their lapses in democracy and working to fix them, neither will.

In theory, the US and India are both diverse and rich democracies whose partnership will help uplift people’s freedom throughout the world. But as these two silently weakening democracies share closer ties, they may be dragging each other down instead. Of the visit, First Lady Jill Biden said, “Our relationship isn’t only about the government. We’re celebrating the families and friendships that span the globe, those who feel the bonds of home, in both of our countries.” For the millions of people who call both countries home, there is potential for both progress and decline, but the future remains uncertain.

The post What Does Modi’s White House Visit Mean For Indian-Americans Today? first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post What Does Modi’s White House Visit Mean For Indian-Americans Today? appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

On the early morning of June 14, 2023, a migrant boat sailing off the coast of Greece capsized and sank, killing over 300 passengers and leaving hundreds missing. On this boat were immigrants from Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine—all disappearing into the deep waters of the Mediterranean. The ship was set to arrive in Italy, providing these immigrants with a new place to call home. However, the ship’s condition slowly deteriorated soon after its departure—passengers faced a quickly decreasing food and water supply, and a few had fallen unconscious. When the ship began to sink around 2 a.m., many of these passengers expected, or at least hoped for, some form of rescue. These requests were never met—leading to one of the largest marine tragedies in history. 

As news channels and broadcasting companies began investigating the shipwreck, it was quickly discovered that an estimated 300 of the ship’s passengers were Pakistani refugees. This begs the question: what is the current state of the South Asian country? What push factors are present, and so strong, that thousands of Pakistan’s natives keep choosing to embark on such long, difficult, and dangerous journeys at sea? The June 14 migrant ship sinkage is not the first, but the third incident this year that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Pakistani refugees. Among these incidents are the capsizing of a boat in the Italian Calabria region and a third ship sinkage in the Mediterranean Sea. 

From Pakistan, many are departing to find better and brighter lives. Anis Majeed from Kotli, Pakistan, is one of the thousands of relatives of immigrants on the Greek ship. In an interview with Al Jazeera, Majeed revealed that his cousin, Awais Asif, left Pakistan in order to find a better “financial future for himself and his family.” In the eyes of these immigrants, the guarantee of financial security is one of the greatest push factors motivating them to leave their home country. Often, they begin their voyages to European lands, hoping to find rewarding futures. The journey to get to these new countries is not easy, by any means. As a result of policies enacted by Pakistan prohibiting travel on land and by air, many Pakistani refugees turn to the sea, arriving in countries such as Iran and Greece before moving forward. At times, refugees even turn to traffickers in order to help them obtain the proper documentation to travel. The process is quite dangerous, reflecting the refugees’ desperation and the sacrifices that they make to escape their homelands. 

Abid Kashmiri, who had two family members onboard the migrant ship, states that “it is the hopelessness of [Pakistan] that drives [the immigrants] to leave” in an interview with Al Jazeera. As Pakistan undergoes economic struggles—involving high unemployment rates and inflation—the issue of a lack of financial resources arises. In 2022, the rate of the rupee decreased by 30%—something that thousands of households around Pakistan simply cannot handle. Many around the nation continue to lose their jobs and see no room for economic development as they are confined to what their country now has to offer, particularly post-COVID. Additionally, disregard for education, healthcare, and the environment seems to be present in the country, as so much of its funding goes to the military, leaving little for other crucial problems.

Pakistan’s economic status and funding issues are not the only severe issues facing the country—Pakistan’s military holds critical power and therefore has a large influence over politics. The military’s tactics to take control of Pakistan’s democracy have proven to be successful, with them having led to the downfall of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Conflicts involving army staff are said to have led to Khan’s ultimate arrest and removal from office, with the former prime minister declaring that “the army was behind threats against his life.” According to The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the army also stands as an obstacle between Khan’s attempted rise to power in the upcoming Pakistani general elections, working to disprove that the former prime minister is a popular candidate. The military has continuously been recognized for its effects on Pakistan’s government and the country’s people, and has revealed the extent of its power particularly in the past year. This pressing issue is one of the largest push factors that is steering Pakistani-Asians away from their homeland.

The various economic struggles affecting the country of Pakistan are vastly significant, but are not the only factors for emigration. Along with the military’s extreme power, Pakistan’s population consistently faces issues such as violence, geographical concerns, and difficulties surrounding diversity. The hundreds of thousands of immigrants that flee the country yearly see the escape as an opportunity to build a better, more welcoming life for themselves. However, these immigrants do not expect to lose their lives when onboarding ships meant to take them to new homes. This lack of care for Asian lives is becoming a greater issue as sea tragedies become more and more frequent. After the sinkage of the Greek migrant ship, controversies have also risen regarding the Greek Coast Guard and their delayed efforts at rescuing passengers onboard. Seeing that authorities are continuously disregarding these migrant ships, restoring hope in fellow Pakistani-Asians is vital. Believing in one’s own country may be the deciding factor between a life, or one unfortunately lost at sea.

The post The June 2023 Migrant Ship Sinkage, From the Eyes of a Pakistani-Asian first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post The June 2023 Migrant Ship Sinkage, From the Eyes of a Pakistani-Asian appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

In spring 2023, Disney+ announced the release of American Born Chinese, a young adult show featuring Chinese-American characters with a twist of fantasy action. I finished the first season three days after its premiere, and I was incredibly impressed. First of all, all the actors did phenomenal jobs in inhabiting their characters and telling the overall story. The jokes were great, the storylines were captivating, and overall it had the qualities of a well-produced Disney show. By the time I finished, I was already searching for a season two. 

For those of you who haven’t watched yet, the first season of American Born Chinese is an 8-episode fantasy action comedy centered around Jin Wang, the Chinese-American protagonist. He meets Wei-Chen, a new student who“recently moved from China,” who actually turns out to be the son of the mythical Monkey King. They embark on an adventure together to “save the heavens,” and along the way, many other characters and side-plots are introduced. The series addresses race, family values, friendship, youthhood (and adulthood), hardship, and sacrifice. 

It was clear that Disney and executive producer Kelvin Yu (and his entire team) put race and the “ABC” experience at the core of this show. From the title to the plot lines (Jin feeling like he doesn’t belong in his community , his dad facing a bamboo ceiling in his job, and dealing with racist jokes and a strong-willed Asian affinity group at Jin’s school affinity group), Yu confronted race incredibly head-on. I am proud that this show, along with other recent hits like Crazy Rich Asians, Everything, Everywhere All at Once, and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings have finally given some national and international stage time to English-speaking Asians. 

As an American-Born Chinese high schooler, I was delighted to “see myself” in the characters. Many of the scenes and stories had me saying to myself, “Yeah, I feel that,” like Jin’s inability to relate to his White friends, his tendency to get overlooked and brushed to the side, and, of course, the racist jokes. 

But throughout the show, I started realizing that my feelings bordered more on sympathy towards the experiences of Jin and Wei-Chen, rather than actually feeling like them. Those two characters played more into my internal perception of Chinese and Chinese-Americans, rather than who I, and many Chinese-Americans, are actually like. Society has conditioned us to expect certain things from Chinese people and Asians, and my differences with the characters highlighted my internal bias.

Though we get to explore the funny, sweet, and youthful energies of Jin and Wei-Chen (the deuteragonist), I still felt uneasy after watching their characters interact with the world around them. They, like so many other Asian American characters throughout history, had been confined into the shy, awkward, nerdy, and naive stereotype of Asian American men as perceived by Hollywood and much of society. There is a conscious effort to make Jin and Wei-Chen cooler, by having Jin have white friends, a girlfriend, and play soccer, and by giving Wei-Chen superpowers. Yet, this all doesn’t change the fact that Jin is shy and unconfident, while Wei-Chen is incredibly naive and simple. Though I understand that Yu wanted to make the characters relatable, if the show’s two main characters are constantly humiliating themselves or the audience is cringing at their personalities, it is not doing our community justice. It’s ironic, as one of the show’s side plots is about Ke Huy Quan’s character constantly being confined to a degrading role just to appease White audiences. It seems that Yu is subconsciously contradicting what he is preaching. 

Another issue that brought me discomfort was the almost-comical poaching of Everything, Everywhere all at Once for this TV production. The three most prominent actors from EEAAO, Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, and Stephanie Hsu, also appear in American-Born Chinese, though with more supporting roles. I understand that EEAAO won seven Oscars, but were there really no other Asian actors that Disney could hire? This is not to downplay the work of these three talented actors, but I don’t think I have ever seen such blatant crew copy/pasting anywhere else. 

Despite these critiques, I am nevertheless a huge fan of Yu’s creation. At its most touching moments, the show almost brought me to tears, which is incredibly rare for any production. At its conclusion, I only wanted more. I appreciate the efforts of all parties involved to spread the Chinese-American experience, but as it stands I think the “empowerment” of Chinese-Americans nearly backfires, making us an even bigger out-group. But, hey, change can’t happen overnight, and I think Disney and Yu are both very well-intentioned; let’s see what American Born Chinese, season 2 will bring!

The post A Review of American Born Chinese, by One first appeared on Hear Our Voices Magazine.

The post A Review of American Born Chinese, by One appeared first on Hear Our Voices Magazine.