And what does having a life or not have to do with it?

It seems to me that he used the experience that he’s citing, provided his own spin on what he meant and what the “Asian” meant. Used the interaction to define the actions, behavior and belief systems of the “Asians”. Attributed a word that he chose to use that’s a slur to many people who are disabled to the “Asians”. Double dose of sleaze in my opinion.

If the interaction took place the way he said or at all, there could have been numerous explanations including many that have nothing to do with him. It’s like the op-ed piece that got published where the person attended one or two Ethnic Studies class, then made a scene as to why there was no more discussion on how racism no longer existed, stormed out and then went home to his computer to take a stab at “satire”.

I’ll send the editor and chief a note. I’ve worked on college papers including several years as an opinions editor and I’ve worked as a judge in regional collegiate competitions and it’s often us who get either attempts at satire or diatribes against populations of people defended as satire and on a rare occasion, really good satire, simply because satire is one of the most difficult writing forms to master especially by a college student.

(But I really am peeved at the misuse of ’satire’ by incapable undergrads.)

but i’m curious about RonF’s comment. how is this piece anti-racist satire?

satire is a punch in the eye of Power. satire’s anger, its needle, is directed upward - never downward. if it is, then it ceases to be satire and it’s just another way for those in power to bully the powerless or to scream to the public that you’re just another tool of the status quo.

this is satire:

it is a precise literary term (which means you have to have some measure of intellectual weight to pull it off, which Karson doesn’t)
in satire, your target is held up to merciless ridicule that is often very angry, ideally in the hope of shaming your target into reform (what is Karson advocating for reform? asians themselves or the treatment of asians on campus?)

it has a strong vein of irony or sarcasm (parody, burlesque, exaggeration and double entendre are all devices frequently used in satirical speech and writing - again, pointing to intellectual rigor in the person who calls herself a satirist, and while Karson’s piece is certainly full of sarcasm the racial justice angle is completely submerged, thus undercutting any satirical purpose.)

who is the target of Karson’s ire or sarcasm?
certainly not the white power structure that marginalizes a community of color on campus, making them a racial Other.
certainly not asian stereotype - in fact, his piece replicates them and justifies them.

asian students are the target of his clumsy sarcasm and ’satire’ and to what end? there is none, except to vent some feelings of inadequacy. Karson, as part of the white majority, is bullying a racial minority on campus and joking about reeducation camps so that they can be more ‘white.’ how is this column supposed to criticize the marginalization of asians on campus, or the treatment of asians on campus, or anything about racial justice??

it doesn’t do any of those things so it just becomes, perhaps inadvertently, a racist fantasy of forced assimilation.

RonF, yeah, I totally agree with you. Any POC who is sick of whitey foisting stereotypes on them and whatnot needs to get a life. Oh, no, wait. Tired stereotypes fucking suck and whitey can shove them up his ass. Race-based satire is tricky as hell and I don’t think this was an honest attempt at it. First of all authorship matters. But this particular piece would suck even if a POC had written it. If you look at good satire, like “A Modest Proposal”, Swift wasn’t Irish, but what made the piece really work (and saved him from execution) was “Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: of taxing our absentees [landlords] at five shillings a pound . . . of teaching our landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants” etc. In effect saying, we’re treating these folks so badly we might as well be eating their children and we’re refusing easy solutions, so why not go all the way. The “If it’s War” crap contains no such self-reflection. It mentions racism, but not in a meaningful way. Instead it rejects racism as a cause for tension. If he meant to say otherwise, he did not make it at all clear. And given his track record, it’s unlikely he meant otherwise.

“After reading about the Asian War column on the blogs, I read the column itself. This column is so obviously an anti-racist satire that I can’t believe that anyone is taking it seriously. Anyone who presents this as an actual racist screed against Asians either literally can’t distinguish fantasy from reality, or their desire to push their political agenda overrides their desire to acknowledge facts. Anyone who is offended by this needs to get a life.”

Thanks for the LttE link.