In watching the NBA and NHL playoffs, it strikes me how much better the European and Canadian players are than their American counterparts.
Why is this?
Oh, I don't mean to say that the US isn't producing good players. But for every Kobe Bryant, there are several Tony Parkers and Manu Ginoblis. The Lakers themselves reloaded around Kobe with European players. And in the NHL you have the aforementioned Pens (see previous blog entry) going up against a largely European machine in the Detroit Red Wings.
So what am I getting at?
Why are players coming from Europe (and Canada in the case of hockey) so much better at such a young age?
I'll explore this topic a little more - as well as solve college athletics - in one fell swoop in my next blog entry. Stay tuned:)
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
What should the Knicks do now?
Well, the draft lottery is over - and the Knicks wound up with the 6th pick.
What exactly should the Knicks do?
If they truly want to run Mike D'Antoni's system - and get their salary cap situation down - this is what they should do:
1.Keep any player who's contract expires after this year. This includes Stephon Marbury. The Knicks should suck it up and deal with him for a year - perhaps even shift him over to shooting guard - but as they are not going anywhere for a year, make the best of it.
2.If they do make any trades, take back expiring contracts, not more bad ones. Do the reverse of Isiah Thomas. After all, Isiah got them into this mess - it only makes sense to do the reverse, right?
Fact is, the Knicks do have some players that would garner interest. Big men such as Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph. Or hustle players such as David Lee. See which players would garner interest. Here's a deal:
3.Trade either Curry or Randolph to the Heat for Shawn Marion. Marion, who thrived under D'Antoni, would be an instant fit for the Knicks, who have a huge hole at the small forward position. With the lack of firepower, he'd get a lot more touches with the Knicks than he did in either Phoenix or in Miami - and remember, he left the Suns due to the lack of touches. Getting either big men would be a huge upgrade for the Heat, and allows them to draft Derrick Rose at PG. Marion meanwhile is in his final year - if he's not happy he, like Marbury, is free to go after the 2008-9 season.
4.Look to draft DJ Augustin. Augustin is the second best PG in the draft after Rose. What he is not is an undersized "2" as OJ Mayo, Eric Gordon, or Jerod Bayless. And the Knicks have a small SG in Marbury anyway.
The exception I would make is Mayo, who has the size and game of Dwayne Wade. However, he probably will be taken in the top5, if not top 3.
5.By all means, make sure they are in good salary cap shape for the FA class of 2010. Here's a list of who's available (note - anyone over 30 is eliminated):
Studs: LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Howard, Tracy McGrady, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Manu Ginobili
The Rookie Contracts: Shelden WIlliams, Rajon Rondo, Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, Rudy Gay, Kyle Lowry, Randy Foye, Marcus Williams, Josh Boone, Renaldo Balkman, Mardy Collins, Brandon Roy, Sergio Rodriguez, LaMarcus Aldridge, Quincy Douby, Ronnie Brewer, Andrea Bargnani
Role Players: Amir Johnson, Al Harrington, Derek Fisher, Mike Miller, Darko Mlicic, Udonis Haslim, Quentin Richardson, Raja Bell, TJ Ford
Obviously, this list begins at James, with Wade, Nowitzki and Bosh as the next tier. Assuming that D'Antoni is still coaching the Knicks, players like stoudemire and Joe Johnson are a natural fit as well. Either way, they need to be ready for a potential bonanza.
If they truly want to run Mike D'Antoni's system - and get their salary cap situation down - this is what they should do:
1.Keep any player who's contract expires after this year. This includes Stephon Marbury. The Knicks should suck it up and deal with him for a year - perhaps even shift him over to shooting guard - but as they are not going anywhere for a year, make the best of it.
2.If they do make any trades, take back expiring contracts, not more bad ones. Do the reverse of Isiah Thomas. After all, Isiah got them into this mess - it only makes sense to do the reverse, right?
Fact is, the Knicks do have some players that would garner interest. Big men such as Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph. Or hustle players such as David Lee. See which players would garner interest. Here's a deal:
3.Trade either Curry or Randolph to the Heat for Shawn Marion. Marion, who thrived under D'Antoni, would be an instant fit for the Knicks, who have a huge hole at the small forward position. With the lack of firepower, he'd get a lot more touches with the Knicks than he did in either Phoenix or in Miami - and remember, he left the Suns due to the lack of touches. Getting either big men would be a huge upgrade for the Heat, and allows them to draft Derrick Rose at PG. Marion meanwhile is in his final year - if he's not happy he, like Marbury, is free to go after the 2008-9 season.
4.Look to draft DJ Augustin. Augustin is the second best PG in the draft after Rose. What he is not is an undersized "2" as OJ Mayo, Eric Gordon, or Jerod Bayless. And the Knicks have a small SG in Marbury anyway.
The exception I would make is Mayo, who has the size and game of Dwayne Wade. However, he probably will be taken in the top5, if not top 3.
5.By all means, make sure they are in good salary cap shape for the FA class of 2010. Here's a list of who's available (note - anyone over 30 is eliminated):
Studs: LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Howard, Tracy McGrady, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Manu Ginobili
The Rookie Contracts: Shelden WIlliams, Rajon Rondo, Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, Rudy Gay, Kyle Lowry, Randy Foye, Marcus Williams, Josh Boone, Renaldo Balkman, Mardy Collins, Brandon Roy, Sergio Rodriguez, LaMarcus Aldridge, Quincy Douby, Ronnie Brewer, Andrea Bargnani
Role Players: Amir Johnson, Al Harrington, Derek Fisher, Mike Miller, Darko Mlicic, Udonis Haslim, Quentin Richardson, Raja Bell, TJ Ford
Obviously, this list begins at James, with Wade, Nowitzki and Bosh as the next tier. Assuming that D'Antoni is still coaching the Knicks, players like stoudemire and Joe Johnson are a natural fit as well. Either way, they need to be ready for a potential bonanza.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury
I'd never thought I would live to see the day that I would be rooting for any of the teams in Pittsburgh, but I've become a fan of the Penguins.
In watching the Pens, here's a question I would ask: what would it have been like for Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, and Roy to be on the same team during the 80s????
Because that is what the Pens have in their precious foursome of Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury.
It's not like this was unexpected. All 4 players were picked in the top 5 of each respective draft, with Crosby and Fleury going 1st overall and Malkin a potential #1 if not for Alexander Ovechkin. Crosby in particular has been dealing with the Gretzky comparisons since he was a teenager (with The Great One giving his seal of approval). As for Fleury, there are very few goalies picked 1st overall, so folks knew he was going to be special. Anyone who saw Malkin as a teenager saw the same physical skillset that Lemieux had when he dominated Quebec Jrs.
The surprise is that Malkin is not only a better player than Ovechkin, he may be the best player in the game right now. (Which, ironically is the same argument folks here in Pittsburgh had 20 years ago regarding Lemieux vs. Gretzky).
The surprise is Staal, who nearly scored 30 goals as a rookie and has the same two-way game and nose for scoring shorthanded goals is Messier. No one would compare his leadership skills to Messier's (then again no one could possibly compare to Messier in that regard); however, it took a few years before Messier's body matured enough to be a complete player. Staal is already ahead of the curve, and the roles he is currently taking (and excelling at) in the playoffs are what Messier typically took when he was 2nd line center to Gretz.
The surprise is Fleury, who in sitting out this year due to injury, seems to have figured things out and is taking the "next step" in his evolution. Goalies typically develop later and his progress is what you'd expect a couple years from now. Fluery has arrived.
And this is on the heels of last year's surprise, Crosby winning the Hart and Art Ross. Most people had expected this by year 3 or 4. Again, he has arrived, ahead of schedule. Not even 21, Crosby is the face of the new NHL - the LeBron James on skates and the best player in the league.
(this btw isn't even taking into account Sergei Gonchar playing as one of the best offensive defenseman in the game, a shrewd signing that was panned at the time).
Perhaps this is why Ray Shero shocked the NHL and pulled the trigger to get Marian Hossa. He knew what he had, and that the Dynasty has arrived - now. A year ago, I was telling folks that the Penguins had the look of the Oilers dynasty of the 80s. If it's possible, this team might eventually be even better...
Regardless of whether the Pens can beat the Detroit machine to win the Cup (I personally think they will after dispatching the Rangers but this could be like 1983 when the Oilers steamrolled into the finals but lost to a veteran Islanders team at the end of their dynasty) folks should remember where they were when they saw the dawn of a new dynasty. Like Tiger winning Augusta in '97, Jeter playing in his first October in 96, and Vinitieri shocking the world in 2001.... or Edmonton in 1984. But just imagine if that Edmonton Dynasty also had Lemiuex centering the second line and Roy behind the pipes. That's what we have in Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury...
In watching the Pens, here's a question I would ask: what would it have been like for Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, and Roy to be on the same team during the 80s????
Because that is what the Pens have in their precious foursome of Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury.
It's not like this was unexpected. All 4 players were picked in the top 5 of each respective draft, with Crosby and Fleury going 1st overall and Malkin a potential #1 if not for Alexander Ovechkin. Crosby in particular has been dealing with the Gretzky comparisons since he was a teenager (with The Great One giving his seal of approval). As for Fleury, there are very few goalies picked 1st overall, so folks knew he was going to be special. Anyone who saw Malkin as a teenager saw the same physical skillset that Lemieux had when he dominated Quebec Jrs.
The surprise is that Malkin is not only a better player than Ovechkin, he may be the best player in the game right now. (Which, ironically is the same argument folks here in Pittsburgh had 20 years ago regarding Lemieux vs. Gretzky).
The surprise is Staal, who nearly scored 30 goals as a rookie and has the same two-way game and nose for scoring shorthanded goals is Messier. No one would compare his leadership skills to Messier's (then again no one could possibly compare to Messier in that regard); however, it took a few years before Messier's body matured enough to be a complete player. Staal is already ahead of the curve, and the roles he is currently taking (and excelling at) in the playoffs are what Messier typically took when he was 2nd line center to Gretz.
The surprise is Fleury, who in sitting out this year due to injury, seems to have figured things out and is taking the "next step" in his evolution. Goalies typically develop later and his progress is what you'd expect a couple years from now. Fluery has arrived.
And this is on the heels of last year's surprise, Crosby winning the Hart and Art Ross. Most people had expected this by year 3 or 4. Again, he has arrived, ahead of schedule. Not even 21, Crosby is the face of the new NHL - the LeBron James on skates and the best player in the league.
(this btw isn't even taking into account Sergei Gonchar playing as one of the best offensive defenseman in the game, a shrewd signing that was panned at the time).
Perhaps this is why Ray Shero shocked the NHL and pulled the trigger to get Marian Hossa. He knew what he had, and that the Dynasty has arrived - now. A year ago, I was telling folks that the Penguins had the look of the Oilers dynasty of the 80s. If it's possible, this team might eventually be even better...
Regardless of whether the Pens can beat the Detroit machine to win the Cup (I personally think they will after dispatching the Rangers but this could be like 1983 when the Oilers steamrolled into the finals but lost to a veteran Islanders team at the end of their dynasty) folks should remember where they were when they saw the dawn of a new dynasty. Like Tiger winning Augusta in '97, Jeter playing in his first October in 96, and Vinitieri shocking the world in 2001.... or Edmonton in 1984. But just imagine if that Edmonton Dynasty also had Lemiuex centering the second line and Roy behind the pipes. That's what we have in Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury...
A vote for Obama
As many of you who know me can attest, I am an unabashed supporter this year for Obama. Here's why....
First off, I feel that our country is not particularly in good shape. Specifically we as a country seem more divided than united. Now, perhaps a lot of this is being driven by talk radio, but it really seems like this is the result of very polarizing figures in the White House, specifically Bush and Clinton before him. Perhaps it was like this during the Reagan administration as well; I have to plead to the ignorance of my youth for that time. All I know is that we seem very divided as a nation.
Consequently many of the candidates running are a result of this situation. Essentially the feeling that I get with most of the candidates is that "I have my viewpoints and ideas, you are welcome to be part of my side but if you don't agree with me the heck with you". Even more disturbing is when you see the majority of the candidates on TV, all of their support base look just like the candidates. They aren't even trying to reach beyond folks who "look" like them.
Where Obama differs on this is that he is reaching out to "groups" of people that ARE different than him. What I get from his actions is "I'm willing to listen". I think this is an important quality of any leader. I *also* think this is something faith driven in him, which is why I said I like how his faith works.
I've used the example of him speaking at Rick Warren's church. Here is the text of his speech: (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061201-race_against_ti/) as well as an article in Time Magazine about it (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html).
If you read his speech, you'll notice a couple of things. One, he calls himself a fellow Christian. If he's not a Christian, he was seriously putting himself on the firing line. Two, he gives Bush credit where it's legitimately due (Which to be honest is more than I would do). That's something none of Bush's opponents have done.
Then there is the impact of him speaking at Saddleback. I am not a Rick Warren fan at all - I think his books seriously dumb down Christianity - but the way he lives his life definitely honors God (he does a 90/10 tithing where his family tithes 90% and their family lives off of 10%, plus they no longer collect a paycheck at Saddleback) and from what I see of Saddleback it definitely seems like a "legitimate" church. I don't think Rick Warren would have asked a non-christian to speak, particularly a politician - after all, if it was just a matter of asking a democrat, he could have asked Hillary Clinton who was far more visible at the time.
From the cynical viewpoint, was it calculated? Definitely. Still, the big thing is that Barack spoke at a venue and to an audience that no other Democrat would speak at. And just as telling, you don't see any of the Republican candidates speaking at a traditionally Democratic stronghold.
Going back to this "I will listen" perspective: I think our next president has to have this viewpoint, not just in terms of advocating "change" but also with foreign policy. Beyond the war, the biggest issue I have is that the idea that the United States is the only superpower left, and thus we are the big bully on the block. (Ron Paul has this viewpoint - to the extent he wants the US leave the UN - which is why I won't vote for him.).
Fact is, China is already the equal of the US and in 10 years India will probably be the third.
The viewpoint that the rest of the world has is that the US will not listen to anyone. I"m not saying he has to agree but he should at least TRY to understand what the perspective of the other person is saying, which ironically Jimmy Carter managed to accomplish this with his work in 2002, thus winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Most of the Arab world already has this viewpoint of us, and I don't think we can "win the hearts and minds of the Arab world" as Bush wants to do without some level of change of perspective from our end (especially not after calling Iran one of the "Axis of Evil"). Now, listening is NOT the same thing as agreeing. But what I get from Obama is that he is willing to work with people who don't necessarily see eye to eye with him, who may not worship at the same church that he does. I don't get that from anyone else. And in a nation of different viewpoints and people, isn't that what a leader is supposed to do?
In terms of Obama's faith, he has said that he's a Christian. More specifically he's said the following about how he came to be a Christian:
"...was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." ... in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, he came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."
You would expect Obama to say something like "Belief in God gives me comfort" or something like that. The Clintons have said this for example. This on the other hand is rather pronounced, more specifically as he did not grow up in a Christian household.
Obama was also honest about how during his formative years he did drugs and alcohol to push his questions away. In other words, he had a hole in his heart that he tried to fill with other things before he understood who God was. That seems pretty legit to me.
In his time as a Christian, I really see God working in his life to reach out to others who aren't the same as him. From his work as a lawyer working with underprivileged and disadvantaged to speaking at Saddleback, he's constantly breaking down barriers. In a way, I guess you could say that I relate to that:). But more specifically I feel this is a God thing simply b/c he's doing what does NOT come naturally. Frankly the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties was only able to gain steam that way, when whites worked with blacks. And I think Obama's whole professional life is about this.
Where Obama stands on the "issues". I don't agree with everything that he wants to do - then again I don't agree with everything of any of the candidates. However many of the differences are moot points to me. I've already explained my viewpoint on Abortion. Healthcare is another. Given how rich the Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies are, their lobbying power is probably the equivalent of the Tobacco industry or the NRA. And frankly I do think there needs to be some sort of universal health care, just not the extreme level that the Democrats are asking about. I'm more for a "baseline" type health care system, or at least something along the lines of a $4 generic drug plan.
I agree with his stance on the war, and I especially agree with his stance on education (ask any teacher what No Child Left Behind has made things worse not better). More specifically his position on issues such as Education seems like he actually SPOKE to the experts - the teachers, educators, etc. Those of you that are parents, look closely at some of the viewpoints of the other candidates and ask any expert in that field you know (such as a teacher for education) and get their opinion.
Ultimately Obama seems to be willing to listen, as I have said before. If the experts (say the Generals in Iraq) tell him differently than what he thinks, I think he would change his mind.
First off, I feel that our country is not particularly in good shape. Specifically we as a country seem more divided than united. Now, perhaps a lot of this is being driven by talk radio, but it really seems like this is the result of very polarizing figures in the White House, specifically Bush and Clinton before him. Perhaps it was like this during the Reagan administration as well; I have to plead to the ignorance of my youth for that time. All I know is that we seem very divided as a nation.
Consequently many of the candidates running are a result of this situation. Essentially the feeling that I get with most of the candidates is that "I have my viewpoints and ideas, you are welcome to be part of my side but if you don't agree with me the heck with you". Even more disturbing is when you see the majority of the candidates on TV, all of their support base look just like the candidates. They aren't even trying to reach beyond folks who "look" like them.
Where Obama differs on this is that he is reaching out to "groups" of people that ARE different than him. What I get from his actions is "I'm willing to listen". I think this is an important quality of any leader. I *also* think this is something faith driven in him, which is why I said I like how his faith works.
I've used the example of him speaking at Rick Warren's church. Here is the text of his speech: (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061201-race_against_ti/) as well as an article in Time Magazine about it (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html).
If you read his speech, you'll notice a couple of things. One, he calls himself a fellow Christian. If he's not a Christian, he was seriously putting himself on the firing line. Two, he gives Bush credit where it's legitimately due (Which to be honest is more than I would do). That's something none of Bush's opponents have done.
Then there is the impact of him speaking at Saddleback. I am not a Rick Warren fan at all - I think his books seriously dumb down Christianity - but the way he lives his life definitely honors God (he does a 90/10 tithing where his family tithes 90% and their family lives off of 10%, plus they no longer collect a paycheck at Saddleback) and from what I see of Saddleback it definitely seems like a "legitimate" church. I don't think Rick Warren would have asked a non-christian to speak, particularly a politician - after all, if it was just a matter of asking a democrat, he could have asked Hillary Clinton who was far more visible at the time.
From the cynical viewpoint, was it calculated? Definitely. Still, the big thing is that Barack spoke at a venue and to an audience that no other Democrat would speak at. And just as telling, you don't see any of the Republican candidates speaking at a traditionally Democratic stronghold.
Going back to this "I will listen" perspective: I think our next president has to have this viewpoint, not just in terms of advocating "change" but also with foreign policy. Beyond the war, the biggest issue I have is that the idea that the United States is the only superpower left, and thus we are the big bully on the block. (Ron Paul has this viewpoint - to the extent he wants the US leave the UN - which is why I won't vote for him.).
Fact is, China is already the equal of the US and in 10 years India will probably be the third.
The viewpoint that the rest of the world has is that the US will not listen to anyone. I"m not saying he has to agree but he should at least TRY to understand what the perspective of the other person is saying, which ironically Jimmy Carter managed to accomplish this with his work in 2002, thus winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Most of the Arab world already has this viewpoint of us, and I don't think we can "win the hearts and minds of the Arab world" as Bush wants to do without some level of change of perspective from our end (especially not after calling Iran one of the "Axis of Evil"). Now, listening is NOT the same thing as agreeing. But what I get from Obama is that he is willing to work with people who don't necessarily see eye to eye with him, who may not worship at the same church that he does. I don't get that from anyone else. And in a nation of different viewpoints and people, isn't that what a leader is supposed to do?
In terms of Obama's faith, he has said that he's a Christian. More specifically he's said the following about how he came to be a Christian:
"...was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." ... in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, he came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."
You would expect Obama to say something like "Belief in God gives me comfort" or something like that. The Clintons have said this for example. This on the other hand is rather pronounced, more specifically as he did not grow up in a Christian household.
Obama was also honest about how during his formative years he did drugs and alcohol to push his questions away. In other words, he had a hole in his heart that he tried to fill with other things before he understood who God was. That seems pretty legit to me.
In his time as a Christian, I really see God working in his life to reach out to others who aren't the same as him. From his work as a lawyer working with underprivileged and disadvantaged to speaking at Saddleback, he's constantly breaking down barriers. In a way, I guess you could say that I relate to that:). But more specifically I feel this is a God thing simply b/c he's doing what does NOT come naturally. Frankly the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties was only able to gain steam that way, when whites worked with blacks. And I think Obama's whole professional life is about this.
Where Obama stands on the "issues". I don't agree with everything that he wants to do - then again I don't agree with everything of any of the candidates. However many of the differences are moot points to me. I've already explained my viewpoint on Abortion. Healthcare is another. Given how rich the Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies are, their lobbying power is probably the equivalent of the Tobacco industry or the NRA. And frankly I do think there needs to be some sort of universal health care, just not the extreme level that the Democrats are asking about. I'm more for a "baseline" type health care system, or at least something along the lines of a $4 generic drug plan.
I agree with his stance on the war, and I especially agree with his stance on education (ask any teacher what No Child Left Behind has made things worse not better). More specifically his position on issues such as Education seems like he actually SPOKE to the experts - the teachers, educators, etc. Those of you that are parents, look closely at some of the viewpoints of the other candidates and ask any expert in that field you know (such as a teacher for education) and get their opinion.
Ultimately Obama seems to be willing to listen, as I have said before. If the experts (say the Generals in Iraq) tell him differently than what he thinks, I think he would change his mind.
Racism? Cultural ignorance? You decide....
(Note: Boy, can I relate to this story!)
Stopping Traffic in the People’s Republic
By VIVIAN S. TOY
NYTimes Published: May 4, 2008
WERE people gawking at my children? I wasn’t sure.
We were visiting the Forbidden City in Beijing, part of a two-week family vacation to China, when a young woman pulled down her antipollution mask and stared, open-mouthed, at my 7-year-old son, Patrick. She didn’t seem dangerous, just amazed, so I let the moment pass and we moved along to the next stop on our tour.
But the next day, during a visit to the Great Wall, my maternal defenses kicked in when another woman approached us. Without asking permission, she sidled up to my 11-year-old son, Aidan, and draped her arm around him. Her husband was about to snap a quick photograph when I shouted furiously at her in halting Mandarin to get away from my son.
By then, it had become clear why my children were attracting so much attention. They look Chinese, but not exactly. They look Western, but not quite. What they really look like is what they are: a blend of me, a Chinese-American, and my husband, a blond 6-footer of English and Irish descent.
Was I reading more into what may have been simple curiosity? The gawkers reminded me of my own painful experiences of being different: grade school classmates who would pull their eyes into squints and launch into a mocking sing-song; a college adviser who suggested I switch my major to biology since Chinese are better suited for the sciences; colleagues who have mistaken me for some other Asian-American woman.
But when one of Aidan’s cousins, along on the trip, asked what the photo-seeking woman wanted, my son told him: “I guess she just wanted a picture with a cute little boy.” The innocence of his reply made me feel guilty. What if that was all she saw — a cute little boy?
On my first trip to China more than 20 years ago, crowds would gather at the sight of foreigners, especially blond and fair-skinned ones. White people are not quite so exotic these days. My husband hardly merited a second look. But my mixed-race children stopped many Chinese in their tracks.
(To be fair, even in a multicultural center like New York City, where we live, my children still elicit double-takes here and there, and my 14-year-old nephew, who is also mixed race and lives in the city, has been asked the discomforting question, “What are you?”)
Cheng Li, a senior fellow on Chinese government and culture at the Brookings Institution, said the Chinese reaction to my children was not that unusual and, from a Chinese perspective, was not considered impolite or offensive. Perhaps that’s why, when yet another woman stopped me at the Great Wall and asked, very politely, if she could have her picture taken with Patrick, she seemed both shocked and deflated when I snapped, “No!”
“I can’t?” she said, shrinking back and sounding confused.
But Mr. Li said our experience “does kind of reflect some problems that China will have as they deal with cultural diversity, pluralism and tolerance.”
In China, differences are defined largely by ethnicity, he said. Han Chinese account for 93 percent of the 1.3 billion people; more than 50 other ethnic minority groups — all of which we might lump together as Asian — make up the rest. In terms of race, he said, “China is not like the melting pot that the United States is.”
The sheer density of the population may also give the Chinese a very different sense of personal space. “Personal spaces overlap,” said Stuart Strother, an economist who has lived in China and who wrote a travel guide, “Living Abroad in China,” with his wife, Barbara.
“It’s not that you don’t have any personal space, but I may have to share your space,” he said. Perhaps as a consequence, Dr. Strother said, pointing at and touching people, even total strangers, is not considered rude.
He added that Chinese society emphasizes a collective mentality over an individualistic one. “They have an idea that we’re all family,” he said, noting that children in China are routinely told to address relative strangers as uncle or aunt. So picking up someone else’s child, even if you don’t know them, is not considered inappropriate.
He said that when he and his wife lived in Shanghai with their 2-year-old twin sons in 2000, local Chinese would often try to scoop them up in their arms. “A pair of two-year-old blond kids can be hard to resist,” he said.
Shuhan Wang, the executive director for Chinese language initiatives at the Asia Society, said that while Chinese people were generally reserved with strangers and might not initiate conversations with adults they don’t know, the rules for children are different. Children are all affectionately called “little brother” and “little sister,” she said, and, quoting what she said was a Chinese saying — “You treat other people’s elderly as if they are your own, and you treat other people’s children as if they are your own” — she added, “So in a way, everybody in society is extended family.”
All the attention had nonetheless made my children uneasy. I didn’t have the benefit of experts to consult while I was in China, but I felt it was important to tell my children and their cousins, who are also mixed race, to expect more staring and touching. Some Chinese had never seen anyone who was multiracial and they were simply curious, I told them. I suggested that they should stare back and make a silly face at anyone who made them feel uncomfortable — an idea that made them laugh. They tried it a couple of times, too. A few Chinese on the receiving end made their own funny faces in return; a few others turned tail and left us alone.
My husband, Chris Langston, was surprised but relieved that he didn’t stick out. At first, he also found the focus on our children unsettling. But when a young woman came up to him in Xian, midway through our trip, smiling broadly and gesturing that she wanted to pick up our 3-year-old daughter, Katie, and be photographed with her, he agreed. The woman’s sheer delight as she gave Katie a final hug was palpable and infectious.
So we took no offense when a group of ladies pointed and giggled at my children and their cousins in the Shanghai airport. One woman was practically giddy when she spotted Katie and said to her friends: “Look at the smallest one. She’s so adorable, let’s take her home!”
I laughed and said to her, “Yes, let’s take her home.”
Stopping Traffic in the People’s Republic
By VIVIAN S. TOY
NYTimes Published: May 4, 2008
WERE people gawking at my children? I wasn’t sure.
We were visiting the Forbidden City in Beijing, part of a two-week family vacation to China, when a young woman pulled down her antipollution mask and stared, open-mouthed, at my 7-year-old son, Patrick. She didn’t seem dangerous, just amazed, so I let the moment pass and we moved along to the next stop on our tour.
But the next day, during a visit to the Great Wall, my maternal defenses kicked in when another woman approached us. Without asking permission, she sidled up to my 11-year-old son, Aidan, and draped her arm around him. Her husband was about to snap a quick photograph when I shouted furiously at her in halting Mandarin to get away from my son.
By then, it had become clear why my children were attracting so much attention. They look Chinese, but not exactly. They look Western, but not quite. What they really look like is what they are: a blend of me, a Chinese-American, and my husband, a blond 6-footer of English and Irish descent.
Was I reading more into what may have been simple curiosity? The gawkers reminded me of my own painful experiences of being different: grade school classmates who would pull their eyes into squints and launch into a mocking sing-song; a college adviser who suggested I switch my major to biology since Chinese are better suited for the sciences; colleagues who have mistaken me for some other Asian-American woman.
But when one of Aidan’s cousins, along on the trip, asked what the photo-seeking woman wanted, my son told him: “I guess she just wanted a picture with a cute little boy.” The innocence of his reply made me feel guilty. What if that was all she saw — a cute little boy?
On my first trip to China more than 20 years ago, crowds would gather at the sight of foreigners, especially blond and fair-skinned ones. White people are not quite so exotic these days. My husband hardly merited a second look. But my mixed-race children stopped many Chinese in their tracks.
(To be fair, even in a multicultural center like New York City, where we live, my children still elicit double-takes here and there, and my 14-year-old nephew, who is also mixed race and lives in the city, has been asked the discomforting question, “What are you?”)
Cheng Li, a senior fellow on Chinese government and culture at the Brookings Institution, said the Chinese reaction to my children was not that unusual and, from a Chinese perspective, was not considered impolite or offensive. Perhaps that’s why, when yet another woman stopped me at the Great Wall and asked, very politely, if she could have her picture taken with Patrick, she seemed both shocked and deflated when I snapped, “No!”
“I can’t?” she said, shrinking back and sounding confused.
But Mr. Li said our experience “does kind of reflect some problems that China will have as they deal with cultural diversity, pluralism and tolerance.”
In China, differences are defined largely by ethnicity, he said. Han Chinese account for 93 percent of the 1.3 billion people; more than 50 other ethnic minority groups — all of which we might lump together as Asian — make up the rest. In terms of race, he said, “China is not like the melting pot that the United States is.”
The sheer density of the population may also give the Chinese a very different sense of personal space. “Personal spaces overlap,” said Stuart Strother, an economist who has lived in China and who wrote a travel guide, “Living Abroad in China,” with his wife, Barbara.
“It’s not that you don’t have any personal space, but I may have to share your space,” he said. Perhaps as a consequence, Dr. Strother said, pointing at and touching people, even total strangers, is not considered rude.
He added that Chinese society emphasizes a collective mentality over an individualistic one. “They have an idea that we’re all family,” he said, noting that children in China are routinely told to address relative strangers as uncle or aunt. So picking up someone else’s child, even if you don’t know them, is not considered inappropriate.
He said that when he and his wife lived in Shanghai with their 2-year-old twin sons in 2000, local Chinese would often try to scoop them up in their arms. “A pair of two-year-old blond kids can be hard to resist,” he said.
Shuhan Wang, the executive director for Chinese language initiatives at the Asia Society, said that while Chinese people were generally reserved with strangers and might not initiate conversations with adults they don’t know, the rules for children are different. Children are all affectionately called “little brother” and “little sister,” she said, and, quoting what she said was a Chinese saying — “You treat other people’s elderly as if they are your own, and you treat other people’s children as if they are your own” — she added, “So in a way, everybody in society is extended family.”
All the attention had nonetheless made my children uneasy. I didn’t have the benefit of experts to consult while I was in China, but I felt it was important to tell my children and their cousins, who are also mixed race, to expect more staring and touching. Some Chinese had never seen anyone who was multiracial and they were simply curious, I told them. I suggested that they should stare back and make a silly face at anyone who made them feel uncomfortable — an idea that made them laugh. They tried it a couple of times, too. A few Chinese on the receiving end made their own funny faces in return; a few others turned tail and left us alone.
My husband, Chris Langston, was surprised but relieved that he didn’t stick out. At first, he also found the focus on our children unsettling. But when a young woman came up to him in Xian, midway through our trip, smiling broadly and gesturing that she wanted to pick up our 3-year-old daughter, Katie, and be photographed with her, he agreed. The woman’s sheer delight as she gave Katie a final hug was palpable and infectious.
So we took no offense when a group of ladies pointed and giggled at my children and their cousins in the Shanghai airport. One woman was practically giddy when she spotted Katie and said to her friends: “Look at the smallest one. She’s so adorable, let’s take her home!”
I laughed and said to her, “Yes, let’s take her home.”
It's been awhile...
...and sorry for the inactivity!
Anyway, between working 50-60 hour weeks at CTi, doing "start-up" work building a church plant, and music, something had to give. So it was the blog.
Now, that I'm no longer working, I have more free time. I'll be placing some of my thoughts (including some folks have seen over email) and will let folks yell at me at will...:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)