Halfie super babies and me-love-you-long-time girls cause trouble at Yale
JC
The Yale Daily News ran an article by student writers of an on-campus publication (Rumpus), that basically serves as an explanation and apology. In their April edition, they featured two articles (Me Love You Long Time: Yale’s Case of Yellow Fever and Miscegenation Station: Interracial Dating at Yale) that poke fun at interracial couples, and specifically hone in on couples involving Asian women and white men. Of course, nothing new. But it was enough for two Asian students who got pissed off and wrote an article about it. So, these articles (and probably the rest of the pub) are chock full of stereotypes, for sure. Things that should definitely offend people…BUT…taking things into context, clearly this student publication doesn’t have one bone of seriousness. I am not sure…part of me believes that we should challenge stereotypes everywhere we see them, but another part feels like we also need to take a deep breath and realize when it’s really not worth our time. This seems like one of those times, but I am also not a student at Yale — perhaps there is some real-life hostility or mockery of mixed couples or Asians that would make these articles sting even more?
(Upon further investigation, this seems like a larger problem. The Asian American Students Alliance at Yale actually issued a formal complaint against Rumpus to the Admissions Office because it was a prefrosh issue. Basically, many students would be getting this as part of their first impression of the school.)
I was getting the sense that perhaps Rumpus has something against Asians specifically (maybe even subconsciously), but they also ripped on Jewish and Black people — with some pretty racist and obnoxious stereotypes.
Here are some highlights from the winning articles that started this whole debacle:
But what of the Asian males? How do they feel about all of this? Apparently, many of them aren’t too concerned. One sophomore male said, “We [Asian guys] don’t really care about this kind of stuff. We find it kind of amusing. I think one of the primary reasons Asian girls go for white guys is… they’re a bunch of golddiggers.” Among some of the more ethnocentric Asians (or AZN’s, if you will), girls like this have a special title: “twinkie.” Rumpus, however, sees this sort of xenophobic protectionism for what it really is… racism. After all, who could object to the creation of super-hot, multi-racial hybrids, or, in lay terms, “halfies”? As one Yale male pointed out, “Halfies are the most beautiful things on Earth. They are the real chosen people.” (Suck on that, Slifka.) Two nearby girls quickly agreed: “They [halfies] are super-babies.” “Yeah. Super babies.”
And only one more because I can’t look at this anymore. 
One male sophomore said, “It’s a trend that people are definitely missing out on. I’ve dated three Asian girls. It’s less a fever and more a full-on disease…Asian girls are like SARS — they take my breath away.” One sophomore girl theorized that white guys are attracted to Asian girls because, “They [the guys] have this fantasy idea of the Asian wife: meek, submissive, Korean… We [Asian girls] are nimble, good with our hands, have less hair, and we age well. It’s a no-brainer.” But, as Confucius used to say, “Fortune cookie break both ways.”…
P.Moore wrote:
Yet another example of how an “Ivy League” school can condone idiocy. This is unacceptable, point blank. I find “halfie” to be just about as offensive as someone calling me a “mutt”. This is disgusting. I see this a lot in my daily life at Rice. “Smart” kids with dumbassed humor tactics and shallow approaches to race relations.
Posted 22 Apr 2006 at 11:01 am ¶
dl wrote:
P.Moore, do you see the irony of your statement? Attributing to eight college campuses the words of a single publication is, by the definition, a stereotype. Just becaue it isn’t a racial stereotype doesn’t give it any more intellectual vigor.
Posted 22 Apr 2006 at 2:28 pm ¶
P.Moore wrote:
dl,
If you notice, I started my post by saying “yet another example,” which by definition implies that I am not, as you say, “attributing to eight college campuses the words of a single publication.” This type of insensitivity and low-grade college humor is not unique to the Ivy’s or the Top-15’s, but I have seen it happen a lot more at these types of schools, mine included (Rice).
Additionally, you insinuate that the “intellectual vigor” of my argument is lessened due to the fact that I present a “stereotype.” I disagree. I believe that a stereotype of Americans is that we value freedom of speech, independence, and freedom of thought. Would this devalue the intellectual vigor of an argument if I chose to use that characterization of the American? In any event, the belief still stands. Kids at expensive schools will be less exposed to the normal (that is to say, un-sensationalized) life of a minority versus their counterparts at community colleges or public schools.
Posted 22 Apr 2006 at 4:50 pm ¶
tmk wrote:
I think the magazine is a great representation of the racism and sense of humor I have seen and experienced on so-called “intellectual” campuses. The publication itself is hideous (seeing a hairy ass? NOT my type of post-dinner web surfing) and is a great fine-art example of sheltered kids who were taught the ropes to connect with other races through poor media exposure.
Posted 22 Apr 2006 at 11:25 pm ¶
caroline wrote:
The only thing that offended me about this publication and article is that it wasn’t even funny. If you’re going to offend people, at least be funny — like The Onion, they get it right.
It was just the same old jokes about mixed people and interracial couples, recycled to death.
Posted 24 Apr 2006 at 11:05 am ¶
Bo wrote:
From my experience in an Ivy school, this type of unfunny asian stereotype is viewed as acceptable by most non-asian students. It is good to know asians are standing up to it.
Posted 16 Jun 2006 at 1:20 am ¶