Here is a further update on the fall out from the Daniel Hong article in the Korea Times. I orignially posted about this article a couple weeks ago and I provided an additional update last week.
Today the Korea Times had an opinion piece criticizing the Daniel Hong article. The op-ed is well written and makes many of the points about Daniel Hong that was exposed through the blogosphere. Here is a quick snippet:
So, now we are left with some questions: Did this alleged conversation with Prasso actually occur? How can we trust the words of an author who claims another’s words as his own? We might be suspicious that such a person might claim a conversation that never happened as well. Perhaps Ms. Prasso will have chance to read this and comment on the veracity of the author’s use of her name and words. Prasso and Hong both make use of stereotypes as the basis for their writing. Prasso discusses the stereotypes that Westerners have of Asians and some of the problems associated with those stereotypes.Hong, however, simply borrows (scratch that, steals) Prasso’s views in order to attack a subset of westerners for which he has obvious distain. The difference here is that the former is provocative and compelling for the intelligent reader and the later is racist and offensive.
It would be interesting to hear from Ms. Prasso her self on this topic because we have already read enough from Daniel Hong. I doubt we will be reading anything from him in the future now that he has been exposed as a plagarist. Then again this is the Korea Times were talking about so who knows.
3:57 pm on January 6th, 2007 1
You should take a look at Mr. Hong’s rebuttal. Funny stuff. He admits he’s a plagiarist but dredges up a bunch of quote to say that plagiarism isn’t so bad. Then he misuses fancy words (how did the editor not catch it?) and then caps it all off by making the most unpersuasive argument about why his comments weren’t racist.
[Reply]
4:02 pm on January 6th, 2007 2
you GIkorea are a dumbass. Koreans/kyopos hate your fucking guts, along with every other america. Hong is just an average shit-for brains that is just speaking what all the other kyopos/koreana think. the sooner you figure out that your buddies the kyopo/korean would stab you in the back and watch you bleed to death as soon as say “hi” to you, the better. sadly you are too busy eating korean shit to figure it out.
98 percent of the koreans agree with Hong. go look at that kyopo nora park.
“Except to say this: a lot of White guys dating/married to Asian girls are defensive because what Hong describes is not at all the way they are, and a lot of White guys dating/married to Asian girls are defensive because what Hong describes is exactly the way they are.”-Nora Park.
http://norapark.blogspot.com/
[Reply]
7:37 pm on February 18th, 2007 3
Interesting discussion you are having. The best thing I could add at this point is that I encourage people to pick up a copy of “The Asian Mystique” and read it themselves. It is a book that challenges Western culture to examine the stereotyped images of both Asian women and men that are perpetuated in Hollywood, in Western pop culture, and in media, as well as their implications for East-West relations and relationships.
I feel strongly that this is the most important issue to be debating. Why are Asian males frequently portrayed in Hollywood as effeminate and emasculated? Why are Asian women frequently portrayed as submissive, obedient, and sexually available — or as Dragon Lady dominatrixes? What are the impacts of these images on foreign policy, interpersonal relationships, workplace relations, cross-cultural marriages, the phenomenon of “Yellow Fever,” business such as the mail-order bride industry and prostitution, and the like?
And, most importantly, what are the realities behind the images we consume?
I try to deal with these questions in my book because I think they are important ones that need more debate and discussion, so I encourage you to continue to do so.
With best regards,
Sheridan Prasso
[Reply]