killing equals more killing

Taimu Yamauchi

Section A01

After reading, “Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence” by Darrell Y. Hamamoto, I found the research study of “If wartime killing does lifetime homicidal violence in some lasting or general way, as this model suggests, then one would expect increases in violent crime in postwar societies” to be very interesting. Because the US is constantly at war with different countries, that would partially explain the many murderers, and its many kinds, such as the serial murder, mass murder, and the snipers. This article also stated that most of these murderers were White-American, which reminded me of the Boston Marathon bombing which happened recently. War already kills many people, and I find it unnecessary that even more people are being killed due to the ripple effect of the war.

Question: Is it possible to stop the increases of the violent crimes in postwar societies without needing to eradicate war itself?

Relationship Between South Korea and America

When reading “South Korea’s Pro-US ‘Silent Majority” Strikes Back”, it frustrates me to see how South Koreans do not see the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. From one incident of American soldiers killing two Korean teenagers, a whole country becomes against Americans. This stirred a movement in which there were beatings and a discrimination of Americans in restaurants. Even though I am Korean, I see how stupid this is and how Koreans are reacting is a big mistake. We must look at the bigger picture and see how much America has helped South Korea, and that the killing of two Korean citizens was only an incident. If South Koreans turn against America, then there becomes a bigger issue on how to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. South Korea and America must work together to bring safety to the world. The government will be smart enough to see past what the people think, and do what is best for the two countries. What did Americans do to the two teenagers that has caused this big mess? Will this racism ever go away?

 

The Past Has Effect on Present

In response to: “From Saigon to Baghdad: The Vietnam Syndrome, the Iraq War and American Foreign Policy”

Jason Luong

Section A01

Knowing enough about history does not necessarily bring comfort. That statement could be said for many living in early post-Vietnam War days.  In Andrew Priest’s article, “From Saigon to Baghdad: The Vietnam Syndrome, the Iraq War and American Foreign Policy”, he spoke of the historical, economical, and social “quagmire” left behind after the U.S. retreat from the war. In the wake of the U.S. involvement in the Middle East, many critics and ordinary citizens alike are very well reminded of the affects the past created. During the Vietnam War era, the near-end of the war, and later the loss, created riots, protests, and a sense of insecurity among many American citizens. On one end, many were devastated by the thought of their country losing a war. Others severely remarked on the US involvement causing more deaths in another country and later the withdrawal when the self-losses felt too great. Priest spoke of how, “in the wake of the US defeat, American public discourse focused upon learning lessons so as not to repeat the supposed mistakes of the Vietnam era”. The U.S. involvement in the Middle East began decades before people of my age were even born, but the “War on terror“, as a result of the 9/11 attack, even sparked similar sentiments to my generation that could have only been given words identical to the reviews and texts that portray similar occurrences during the post-Vietnam era.

 

What exactly are the necessary measures currently in place, or must be created, in order to avoid the same atrocities and “national malaise”? Also, what are the reasons, as of recent years, for the US to be involved in other countries’ affairs within the ideas of conflict and intervention?

A divided nation within a divided nation

James Kim
ASA 2 Section 2

As a Korean American, it really hurts me to see South Korea completely split in terms of their stance on issues regarding North Korea. For one, the majority of the South Korean public advocates for a reunified Korea, but how are we even supposed to do that if we can't even reach an accord within South Korea? There seems to be a huge division in political beliefs: the right favoring pro-U.S. militarism and the left vying to dismantle and reconstruct the Seoul-Washington alliance and build a closer relationship with Pyongyang. It's difficult because I can somewhat empathize with both sides of the spectrum despite the substantial polarization of interest. I understand the right side in that it is safer to submit to the U.S. for military and economic aid; however, there is potential for that relationship to turn problematic if South Korea gradually loses autonomy and is eventually forced to succumb to the will of the U.S. out of necessity. The left argues for a reconstruction of the relationship to decrease reliance on U.S. aid and reclaim autonomy by negotiating with North Korea without U.S. approval. Yes, it would be nice if South Korea could stand on its own two feet, but in the event of a huge nuclear war, they would have no choice but to request aid from the U.S. All in all, I understand the sentiment behind both parties' platforms, but we need to come to a consensus in order to realize our hope for a reunified Korea.

Especially now that North and South Korean tensions are growing even more aggressive in the last month, which side would you choose and why? Is North Korea at a point where negotiation is no longer even an option? Is this all just another North Korean ploy to establish Kim Jong-Un's newly found power?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/28/last-groups-south-koreans-leave-shuttered-north-korean-factory/

Silent Majority

    In Response to "South Korea's Pro-US 'Silent Majority' Strikes Back" CNSNews.com

     I went to Korea last summer and spent my time in Seoul. I found it interesting that an army base is at the center of the busy city. My relatives who lives in Korea, had told me about American soldiers that killed two Korean teenagers and enraged many citizens. Many Korean soldiers and American soldiers roam around the city and often come in  and out of the base, so it did not surprise me how American soldiers can easily get mixed up in a crowd of teenagers. In the article, it says that this incident is one of the major factors that is damaging the alliance between America and Korea. As of right now with tension rising between North Korea, South Korean needs help from any country it can get. America is a powerful ally. The 'silent majority' should speak up, but not make a spectacle that can make South Korea look vulnerable to North Korea. 

Why does this movement have to be on Independence Day? 

Claudia Chang

ASA02 

A01

blog #5

Kimberly Hwang
April 28, 2013
Section A01
Reading: Living in a "Sea of Fire" by Michael Hurt

Racism in Korea

In the letter by Michael Kurt, I was shocked to discover the acts of racism by the Korean people over an accident. Two girls were accidentally killed by an American armored vehicle during a training operation. The people in charge apologized and compensation was given to the families, however Americans in Korea started becoming targets of hate crimes. In the letter, he mentions, stabbings, beatings, and restaurants no longer accepting Americans. Surprisingly, these hate crimes were not publicized by the media, but other trivial things were. Basically, the Americans were portrayed as the bad people and the media backed it up. 

The fact that Americans no longer felt safe in a country over an accident, disturbed me. However, these reactions seemed a lot similar to what we talked about in class. How when a white person commits a crime, for example shootings, murders, etc. they are seen as “geniuses” and the media tries to get the people to sympathize with them. However when a black person or a minority is caught committing a crime, they are seen as terrorists and that group is targeted and deemed as bad people. These similar reactions got me to think that maybe it is the natural response of a country to victimize themselves and see outsiders as bad people. Although the situation in Korea was blown out of proportion, maybe this sort of response should have been expected.

Question: Americans have been targeted in Korea for hate crimes, although this is wrong, Are Americans so different from the Koreans? If this happened in America would the reaction have been any different?

Murders Will Always Happen and Can Never be Eradicated.

Andy Wang

Section A02

In Response to "Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence" by Darrell Y. Hamamoto

After reading this article I never knew about the mass murders that have happen over the years since I have only heard about a few from the media. Only a select few are aired on TV because they want ratings. But the 350 mass murders since between 1979 and 1991 amazes me. How can such a thing happen? After reading a bit more on it most of the mass murders that were committed were by White Americans. They feel that their power and birthright was taking away from them as we moved toward globalization and they blamed it on the immigrants. They grew up during the time when whites prospered.

 But what I find even more disgusting was how people can become like this. Maybe they were trying to repeat history as Adolf Hitler has done. History gives us a lot of information that we can tie to people who are committing the murders. Such as genocides during the Vietnam War that American troops have committed. Indiscriminate killings of civilians as they carpet bombed the area, devastating innocent human life. In my opinion, there will always be killings pertained to people of different backgrounds. Either based on gender, race, religion, hatred, or economic reasons. History never fails to repeat itself, killings have been going on forever. 

So how can we fix this problems? Well I don't think there is a current solution. We can probably lower the death rates that was due to murder but I think that will take years. In order for this to happen I think globalization is the answer. If all the countries were connected and everyone was educated, maybe it can be a solution. But I doubt. 

"Unstable American Ex-Soldier Suffering from PTSD kills 3 people

After reading Darrel Y. Hamamoto's  “Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence” by Darrell Y. Hamamoto, I realize how many people American soldiers have killed. America hasn't been around for all that long; however, it always seems like America is in war with some country. Sitting in my all my history classes, I always come to realization that most of America's history revolves around war, killing, and colonizing, also known as, booting people off their land. It's no wonder so many people outside America hate Americans. We are known as the country that always has been involved in someway or another in a war that took place on the Planet Earth. Hamamoto also mentioned in his article under what circumstances are killings actually reported on the news. For example, a group of a hundred innocent Afghans could be gunned down in the streets of Afghanistan, and the chances of the event being reported on the news is close to zero. However, if an American soldier gets hurt or dies in Afghanistan, it would be breaking news on every news channel. What does this say about the American News system? It almost seems like we are dehumanizing any person who is not American. In addition to this, Hamamoto also mentions how the location of the killing also makes a huge impact. If an American soldier kills people overseas, he or she would not be punished, the soldier may even get a medal or a Purple Heart. However, if this American soldier killed someone in America. News headlines such as "Unstable American Ex-Soldier Suffering from PTSD kills 3 people" show up country wide. This simply makes no sense. 

Why do all these factors decide whether or not killing is okay or not okay? Isn't killing, the act of deliberately putting an end to someone's life, just plain wrong no matter what the situation was?

Austin Yu A01

04/28/2013

Anti-American Everywhere?

In Response to “South Korea’s Pro-US “Silent Majority” Strikes Back” by CNSNews and “Living in a ‘Sea of Fire’” by Michael Hurt

An example of Anti-American propaganda.

In the letter by Michael Hurt, he talked about how South Koreans were protesting the US army because of two accidental deaths of middle school girls. Even though the US Army has apologized profusely and given the family retributions, this accident was blown up out of proportions in the Korean news. Then, as Hurt has mentioned, many White Americans living in South Korea started receiving harassment and threats because of the over-sensitized protest. Each little act done by an “American” was publicized but the acts of some Koreans towards Americans were rarely seen. I think all of this is unnecessary to have the protest escalate to enormous proportions. It surprised me how there could be an anti-American sentiment going on in South Korea, I was thought that the relationship between US and S. Korea was friendly.

            In the second article, it talked about how the anti-American sentiment was only a minority full of misinformed people. It also talked about a rally of South Koreans who will urge the South Korean government to not hurt their friendship with the US. I agree with the article when it said the view of North wanting peace is distorted. As we all know now, North Korea did not want peace, it wants to unify Korea under force and under their totalitarian idea of leadership. Now I wonder, why is there anti-American sentiment and bad reputation for the US army wherever they are stationed? What is the point in hating on Americans for decisions made between the governments of each country?

Xishan (Lucy) Ye

Section A02

Yellow Death

A Response to "Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence"

Response By: Jonathan "Prince" Garcia

This article provided the reader with some insight into how the effects of war can have on the veterans and the people they come into contact with. The term "serial killer" was described as "satisfying a thirst for killing." The article talked about a few stories of white men; often war veterans (Vietnam War), and their thirst for killing Asians. The American military has been responsible for many of the gruesome deaths in Southeast Asia because they are not portrayed as human beings in the eyes of these ruthless killers. A common theme between the mass killers described within the article, was that they all appeared to be racially motivated, because the killers were unable to find work, or felt that the country was being taken over by immigrant people and they felt threatened.  The killings of innocent civilians in Southeast Asia by the American military, had allowed for some of those veterans from the battlefield, to justify the killers' reasoning for killing immigrants here. I believe that the American government should take responsibility for the war tactics that have been used, and do a better job in the recruitment of more fit soldiers. Finally, it is also up to the leaders within the government and military, to come up with better strategies to fight a war without having to sacrifice huge amounts of life. 

Question: Why are government and military officials not subject to the same standard as a murderer? 

When You Can't Trust the News

Leigh Hiura
Section A02
Reading: Living in a "Sea of Fire"

In this article, Michael Hurt speaks about how America is portrayed in the news in Korea and how many people are anti-American where he is staying. He is not happy with President Bush and makes it very clear when comparing him to Darth Vader. While I am sure they had a right to be upset with United States and I totally agree that the death of those two schoolgirls is disgusting and wrong, I do not see how it is any more okay to harass, assault, and especially murder troops. It is so unnerving to think about people abusing others just because of how they look and I do not find the sense in it. Also, the fact that the Korean newspapers and news channels do not report all of the facts just feeds the anti-American image. This propaganda forces others to believe that the American troops are evil and they did not show any remorse for what happened to the girls, which is completely untrue. They tried their best to diffuse the situation and while there was very little that they could do to help the family and friends of the girls, they did try to pay for what they could and they did attend the girls’ funerals. Through this, my question is simple. Why does the media portray things in a way to make their people go against certain things? Why can’t they just report the news like they should?

Reading Reflection #5: The Past Justifies the Present

In response to: “Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence” by Darrell Y. Hamamoto

            President Theodore Roosevelt once said “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.” Well, the United States sure hasn’t disappointed him. Turns out in its 235 years of existence, the US has been at war during 214 of those years. That comes out to about 91% of the time. According to Hamamoto, all these years at war have made American citizens vulnerable to murderous tendencies. Serial killers, like Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dalmer, all seem to have connections to the military or wars. Both personal or indirect war experience and trauma were factors in turning men into murders.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the traumatic nature of war. But to use war as an excuse for killing is infuriating. I don’t care if it’s in the midst of war or after the fact, murder is a huge no-no. I hate it when murders claim the war messed with their heads. They killed so many people over there and can’t help their violent streaks now. Most soldiers don’t come back home and kill every person that looked like the enemy. 

I especially hate the amount of media a soldier gets when he kills here in the states compared to what he did in East Asia. When a soldier kills here, the media does special reports and investigations into the murderer’s past. They dig up where he’s from and every little tidbit about his family life. They claim the soldier was a normal American. The media claims it was the war’s fault. How can you possibly justify killing someone now with something that happened in the past?

What's worse, they ignore what the soldiers did while at war. All the lives they ended back in ‘Nam were nothing. Soldiers killed dozens and ruined who knows how many lives during the war. But that’s okay. They were at war. All those innocent men, women and children were the enemy. It was okay to kill them. These stories aren't worth reporting. The public doesn't need to know anything. It dehumanizes the victims. All those people weren't worth recognition, let alone some justice.

Is killing okay in times of war, or is it still just as wrong?

Linda Wei

Section A01

War And Murder: No Difference

I can’t help but feel that Darrell Y. Hammamoto’s paper, “Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence” is all too correct in describing the social atmosphere today.  The atrocities are still around—if not exacerbated—by the invisible wars we still fight.  Unlike Viet Nam, however, these atrocities are swept under the rug of so-and-so’s political scandals (sexual, of course), and some actress’s tacky dress that the media gleefully portrays.  Because of this, the connection Hammamoto enunciates between militaristic culture and civilian violence is lost in the ambient noise.  When Hammamoto writes that “our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher”, he make it clear for me that the glorification of war and the persecution of individual violence is extremely contradictory.  How can the act of killing the enemy and killing a civilian be morally different?  After all, everybody is a civilian in his or her own right.  Perhaps those who actually commit these atrocities truly see there is no difference.  I personally believe that most (if not all people) do not actively seek evil.  In order to do evil, those who commit evil acts must go through a series of rationalizations that convert an evil act to one of simple, blameless necessity.  Could it be that mass murderers believe they are on a crusade?  It would not surprise me.  The militaristic atmosphere here certainly seems like unsettlingly fertile ground for that.

-Melody Yee, Section 2 ASA 2

Privileges

Maureen Mai

ASA 2

“White Privilege and Male Privilege”

            In Peggy’s McIntosh’s article “White Privilege and Male Privilege” she talks about how white men deny that they have certain privileges over other genders and races. Speaking from personal experience as a white female, McIntosh compiles a list of the daily effects of her white privilege; privileges such as special circumstances and conditions that are given to her because of her birth, citizenship and “Law-abiding ‘normal’ person of goodwill” (McIntosh). This list show how stereotypes and prejudice against gender and race affects the way we live. Although I never gave it much thought before this list made me think about how different my life as an Asian is compared to the life of a Caucasian. I could discuss many things on this list but for now I wanted to focus on privilege number 6.

“6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely and positively represented.”

I grew up watching television where almost all characters were white. Occasionally there would be one or two colored characters. However, it was rare for any colored character to be the protagonist. As for Asian characters, we are often portrayed as super smart and nerdy, pale and squinty-eyed. Even today media fails to represent Asian Americans positively. In many cases our personalities and culture is heavily stereotyped or fabricated. For example, in the movie “Karate Kid” Asians were portrayed as people obsessed with their “honor”, which is not the case at all. “Avatar: The Last Air Bender” is heavily influenced by Asian culture, however casting created a good vs. evil between whites and Indians. In “21 and Over”, a recent movie is laced with racist stereotyping.

It’s okay to acknowledge certain traits within our culture and race, however what draws the line between comedy and racisms, especially with in the media?

Wished for Peace

Ka Pou Sin

Reading Reflection for Week 5

ASA 002

  “Living in a ‘Sea of Fire’” by Michael Hurt reminds me of the winning election of George W. Bush and the start of the war. I was in elementary school when this all started but I remembered clearly that no one around me wanted Bush to win. And very disappointing is that somehow Bush lost the votes but ended up as our president for eight years. These eight years was torture. He started the war at Iraq and it totally ruined the United States’ economy. Until now, we are still in debt with a ridiculously huge number of debt; I doubt that we will ever clear the debt. Some may say that the war was necessary and unavoidable; however, I think that it is avoidable and there are many other ways of solving it without having to go through so many years of war. The war caused us to loose so many and nearly got us to fail in the economy. We were in the longest recession due to this huge debt and it is all because of Bush who chose to start war and to continue the war. I promote the idea of peace and not for war; therefore, I did not like Bush at all. Until today, everyone around me talks bad about him whenever the US’s economy is mentioned.  And going through the same period of time as Michael Hurt, I understand his hate and pain. 

Vietnam's Serial Killers

I found it very interesting in the article “ Empire of Death and Plague of Civic Violence”, that Bundy was not prosecuted for the murders he committed. He was pardon from it because they believed it was due to the war that he murdered all the people. This article ties into “From Saigon to Baghdad” because research has shown that a large majority of serial killers were Caucasian. This makes matter interesting because I believe a large majority of the men that were prosecuted were not all war veterans. As we discussed in class, when a white male is guilty of any type of crime, them they are classified as mentally disturbed but when it is committed by an ethnic group then it is then believed that this is the type of behavior that is expected from someone of this group. In recent events such as Newtown massacre and Aurora shooting, the media reported that the cause of this event was due to the upbringing of the individual and blamed the cause of this more on the environment the individual was brought up in. Other times when crimes are committed by any minority group then they are viewed as it is in there genetic makeup to behave this way. Also in the article, “ Empire of Death and Plague of Civic Violence” it was very disheartening that the police brought the young Laotian man back to the apartment because they referred to it as a “Lover’s quarrel.” It makes you start to think that if the situation was changed and the young boy was Caucasian , would the police men have taken the initiative to investigate more to what was going on behind the apartment door. If they would have had the same considerate for the young Laotian boy, then a life could have been saved rather than sacrificed because of the carelessness the officer showed.

Is there a high correlation between Caucasians male and war veterans being serial killers?

Sarak Ouch
Week 5

Serial Killers and the Vietnam War

Aung Lin

ASA 2-Reading Reflection #5

Title: Serial Killers and the Vietnam War

Word Count:452

1.       Title: “Empire of Death and the Plague of Civic Violence” by Darrell V. Hamamoto

Serial Killer Timothy McVeigh

After I read Hamamoto’s article, I learned something new. Serial killers acts upon violent fantasies of death. I always thought serial killers killed innocent people because of sex, money, or revenge. I didn’t know they had fantasies and do it in real life. Parents shooting guns in front of their child is a very bad influence. Charles Whitman shot 15 people because he was fascinated by his father’s passion for guns ever since he was a child. I noticed that all the serial killers and all the people that had the lethal injection are non-Asian people. I think this shows that Asians are not capable of murdering many innocent people. Jack Reeves, Timothy McVeigh, and many of these serial killers once worked for US military. How can that be a coincidence? Military means killing people. I agree with Timothy McVeigh. What happened in Oklahoma City bombing is no different than American government bombing other countries.

Questions:

1)      Do all serial killers deserve death penalty even though they are considered to be mentally ill?

2)      Why are public sympathetic to criminals of violent crimes against people of color? People of color are humans just like white people.

2.       “From Saigon to Baghdad: The Vietnam Syndrome, the Iraq War and American Foreign Policy” by Andrew Priest.

The Vietnam War 

The legacy of the Vietnam War will go on forever. It is a very important part of US history and it’s being studied in details in schools around the world. Today, policymakers try to learn from their failure in Vietnam so they won’t make the same mistakes in the future. Back then US found the Vietnam War impossible to win and hard to withdraw. Many writers wrote books about this and discussed everything in details. It makes me sad that US is still having an on-going war with Iraq after so many years. I wish there’s a way to find peace. In my opinion, this is very similar to Vietnam War. What is the difference between an on-going war and an on-going war? Many people blamed President Bush Jr. for the on-going war and he keeps sending troops to Iraq. Some commentators say the war with Iraq is not similar to the Vietnam War but some says it’s almost the same.

Questions:

1)      Why did US got involved in the Vietnam War and how did they lose?

2)      US lost the Vietnam War for the first time in US history but are they winning the war with Iraq?

               

A Tale of Two Campuses: Berkeley and Davis respond to Occupy Movements

I was surprised as to how different UC Berkeley and UC Davis were in their reactions to the student-led occupy movements about increased tuition at state universities, particularly with the UC system. While UC Berkeley responded by announcing the MCap system, which was designed to help cut university fees of middle-income families, UC Davis responded with complaints about damages and costs from the Occupy movement that students may or may not have made. UC Davis chose to ignore an issue that brought about the Occupy movement from the students, while UC Berkeley chose to address it head on. It made sad to see how poorly my own college’s officials handled this situation, and I was genuinely surprised as to how two schools in the same education system differed from one another when addressing this issue. Why did UC Berkeley respond in such a different way than UC Davis, and why did UC Davis officials choose to ignore this issue?

Timothy Huynh

Section A01

Justice in the application process

Taimu Yamauchi
section A01

        In the article “Situating Asian Americans in the Political Discourse on Affirmative Action”, I found it interesting how there are two possible methods for the process of choosing college applicants. One, which is the Right version of the preferred policy, is to be objective about each applicant, and to admit them or reject them fairly depending on set standards. The Left version of the preferred policy is to be subjective of each applicant, to balance out the demographics of the university. This was a major issue for Asian Americans, because depending on the Right and Left version of the policy, it determined their chances to get into college.

        Ever since the passing of the SP-1 and SP-2, which decided to take on the Right version of the policy, it is said to have benefited the Asian American group the most. To show this, here is a data of the current demographics of UC Davis undergraduates:

The data shows that 37.7% of the undergraduates are Asian, which is a larger number than the 37% consisted of White/Caucasian undergraduates. From this statistics, I could see why it would also pose a problem if the Right version of the policy was utilized. If race was not factored into determination, then, although highly unlikely, the university could possibly consist of the smartest applicants, which could end up being all Asians and White/Caucasians. Every school wants to be as diverse as possible, which is why the Left version of the policy would seem reasonable.

        Since I am Asian, it is hard to make an opinion completely objectively, but I feel as though it is only fair to the hard-working Asians to be rewarded of their hard-work, rather than being punished for it.

My discussion question is: Which method is the fairest for everybody? Is there a fairest way?

Where exactly is the fine line between discrimination and diversification?

James Kim
ASA 2

In "A Quota on Excellence?" by Don T. Nakanishi, the chapter essentially provides statistical evidence for how the Asian American community has become more and more prevalent in higher education and prestigious public and private universities across the U.S.; but this raises the question: Exactly how many Asian identified students should universities accept in order to maintain an ideally diverse population? Ordinarily, I am a strong advocate for diversity on any campus and I understand the unfairness behind admitting more Asian students who generally have more privileges than other minority groups; however, not all Asian Americans possess the same amount of privileges as the stereotypical wealthy and well-educated Asians society labels us by. I know I definitely don't have it all. My dad's a liquor store owner who's currently facing bankruptcy. My mom's a laundromat owner in the sketchy parts of Anaheim. I definitely would not have the money to afford the tuition at Davis if it weren't for my scholarship and financial aid and I certainly did not have the money or time to invest in after-school tutoring during high school because I was always helping my mom out at the store. I was rejected from nearly every UC that I applied to despite my 3.9 weighted GPA and 1950 SAT score and I was wait-listed here at Davis, not because I was incompetent as a student, but because I did not meet the criteria of a standard privileged Asian American. I felt like I was automatically marginalized and stereotyped as "just another Asian" regardless of the circumstances I had to deal with while attending high school. It was as if, no matter how hard I tried, it was impossible for me to go to any Ivy League university or have the capacity to reach this level of success that others with time and money could. My point is that, yes, diversity is good; but higher education has stereotyped the Asian American community as one, huge and generally privileged unit and, in the process, forgot people like me who do not possess the same luxuries as the well-endowed.

How has the college admission system affected and determined your eligibility and academic competence? How did you feel about being forced to conform to a system that marginalizes and discriminates against you? What do you think we can do to rid admissions within higher education of systemic oppression?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaUV25Ezf5A

Walk of Shame

“A Tale of Two Campuses: Berkeley and Davis respond to Occupy Movements” by Alan Markow   

     The Occupy Movement happened before I came to UCD. I had no idea what it was. After my acceptance in to the University, I decided to search "UCD" on YouTube to see if I can find any videos that could give me some perspective of my future school. The only videos that came onto my screen were multiple videos of the police the pepper spraying the students. In contrast of the Berkeley’s Movement in 1999, the police took unnecessary measures to gain control. This action was held responsible by Chancellor Katehi. Berkeley's Chancellor responded to the students in the favor of the movement at the end of a long and arduous protest. Although I felt that the anger from the reaction of the pepper spray incident was misplaced onto Chancellor Katehi, I believe she should have been more involved with the situation before it escalated to a dramatic response from the riot control. Maybe she wouldn't have to experience the walk of shame to her car as hundreds of students watched her in silence.

Having a reference of a protest from Berkeley, why didn't the UCD Chancellor learn from the past?

Claudia

ASA Section A01

Success of an Individual Based on A Stereotype?

Jason Luong
 Section A01
 Reading: "Complicating the Image of Model Minority Success: A Review of Southeast Asian American Education" by Bic Ngo and Stacey J. Lee

  Success of an Individual Based on A Stereotype?
I have seen the affects of the model minority myth before I even heard of the term. Many have used this stereotype
to either ignore their own failures in academics or criticize those who fail to meet the standards this term has set upon them.
However, in the face of a growing population that is full of diversity, people still use this term even within classrooms without

looking directly at the individual's performance. Ngo and Lee examined this fault in their essay while addressing the huge gap of history and immigration
periods of many Asian American groups, and, specifically, Southeast Asian Americans. They recorded the background of each ethnic group, their general income
since their immigration, the potential reasons of their success, and evidence that leads to their struggle to reach "model minority" status.
I am not surprised that this stereotype still exists; people insist on using stereotypes to full the void of knowledge of a certain group
they are not accustommed to. However, stereotypes are not the excuse to make them fact, and applying them as an academic criteria
by teachers will only fuel this trend of ignorance as well as hurt those who fall short of this stereotype. After all, it is called a myth.
My question here is: Is there still a solid reason for people to look towards the model minority stereotype for any reason? And what actions should Asian Americans take today in this decades-old myth?

Blog #4

Kimberly Hwang 

Section A01

April 21, 2013

Reading: “A Tale of Two Campuses: Berkeley and Davis respond to Occupy Movements” by Alan Markow 

A School that Sits Idly by vs. a School that Fights for their Students

This excerpt compares Davis and Berkeley’s responses to the Occupy movement. Surprisingly they had very different reactions. Berkeley’s chancellor responded by taking action and creating a program called MCap, that would make tuition more affordable to the middle-income families. Davis, on the other hand, responded by complaining about all the time and money it took to clean up after the protesters left the school building. Davis took no action to the problem at hand and instead posted articles about their damages and the costs. I think the purpose of comparing these two responses is to point out Davis’s lack of action towards the problem. They completely ignored their student’s plea for change and instead made the student protesters seem like the bad people who destroyed their campus. Berkeley’s action towards the situation, shows that there were ways in which the school could have remedied the problem. Instead of helping their students, Davis just sat idly by while pointing fingers. By comparing these two responses, it shows that the Berkeley chancellor really listens to the students, while the Davis chancellor did nothing to help. Chancellors are here for the students and should always be willing to listen and aid the students in any way possible, but this article shows that the Davis chancellor did not do her job. My question is: If there are other protests in the future about something the students feel strongly about, will the Davis chancellor step up and help the students or will they again do nothing to help the students?