I'll Karate Chop Your Christian Book if You Don't Stop Pimping My Culture
| Wed Nov. 4, 2009 4:30 AM PST
Update: This afternoon the authors posted an apology on their Deadly Viper blog. So far they've gotten some very forgiving responses in the comments section. I guess I won't be needing karate lessons after all? That's a relief.
Zondervan, the world's leading Bible publisher, just released a book called Deadly Viper Character Assasins: A Kung Fu Survival Guide for Life and Leadership.
I'll let that name sink in for a moment. A KUNG FU SURVIVAL GUIDE. It's written by Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite, two people who must understand a form of Chinese even Chinese people can't make sense of, because the cover and website of their book features Chinese characters that read like total gibberish... because they are. They were selected because they "looked compositionally cool."
Seriously? At least the kids at the mall who get various Chinese characters tattooed on their ankles still want to know what the words mean. To me, there's just a total lack of recognition that Chinese characters are part of an actual language, and more than a pretty decoration. Or that the use of an stereotypical Asian ninja theme has little to do with the content of their book, which is Christian leadership. Or that this dubbed-over kung fu video made to promote the book is just downright offensive. Or that kung fu is Chinese and ninjas are Japanese, and those are two totally different cultures.
Advertisement
Advertisement
What's clear is that their target audience is not Chinese-speaking folks. If I picked up a book at Borders with random words on the cover like "Happy, Sister, Tree" I would PROBABLY put it down without buying it. So clearly, this product is not marketed to the people whose culture it so gratuitously portrays. But when North Park Theological Seminary professor Soong-Chan Rah reached out to the book's authors with his critique, he received the following response from co-author Mike Foster:
i realize you have an agenda.
i realize you see what you want to see.
im saddened that you are offended and angered by us shooting a video in a japanese garden.
not much i can do here except say good luck in life and what ever you may be trying to accomplish.btw the kanji on the cover say ninja. warrior. assassin.
peace . . . m.
(What's going on with that last line, by the way? Is that some kind of fortune cookie speak?)
Now I have to admit that I was hesitant to blog this, because I was afraid it would heap more hate on religion as a whole, and that refrain is a tired one. At the same time, it's really frustrating to see your culture pimped out in the holy name of Christian book sales.
So Zondervan, you really want your name on this? This isn't the first time that the Christian company has published racially insensitive materials. It's just that on the other occasions, the authors of the books had enough sense to apologize. Several Asian American bloggers have now written posts and open letters protesting the publishing giant's latest cultural faux pas. But so far, no response. If you feel so compelled, you can add your voice to the mix by contacting the authors or Zondervan's PR team. Just please... do it with a little more grace than Mike Foster's "good luck in life" signoff.
Comments
i find it ironic that mike
Submitted by James Cho (not verified) on Wed Nov. 4, 2009 10:23 AM PST.
i find it ironic that mike foster claims that professor rah has an agenda and sees what he wants to see. if there is such a thing as the proverbial, objective view on issues, the authors of this book certainly don't have it.
let's be clear: professor rah does have an agenda. who doesn't? to claim that having a certain agenda disqualifies a person's rhetoric is logically fallible. the authors of this book certainly have a agenda. i have an agenda. mojo has an agenda. let's hear it for cosmic banalities.
another problem with foster's response is that he puts the onus on the offended to amend their opinions. i find it difficult to believe that a Christian writer who preaches integrity of character in his book refuses to take any action on behalf of those he has offended, and instead chooses to fault them for their sensitivity. correct me if i'm wrong, but do we not usually apologize if we have offended someone? by refusing to apologize, foster fails to admit he has committed offense, and thereby refuses to affirm the humanity of those offended. that is ethnocentrism at best, egocentrism at worst.
"good luck in life" is reminiscent of "stay warm and take care": rhetoric that sounds like goodwill but devoid of good deed. what good is your faith without deed?
It's interesting for me
Submitted by Andy C (not verified) on Thu Nov. 5, 2009 3:24 AM PST.
It's interesting for me reading this, because at one point in my life I probably would have bought and read that book, or at least have had someone suggest it to me. The more of life I've lived and the more experiences that I have had which have forced me to examine the world around me for what it is rather than what I wanted it to be has left me progressively less patient with the kind of attitudes and perspectives perpetuated in everything that surrounds this book, from its content to its author's response to criticism.
I remember once, when I still would have called my self a person of faith, when I took a World Views class focusing on the Western development of thought from Judeo-Christian to Post-Modernism. My teacher was very conservative and at the beginning of the class he talked about how world views were like colored glasses and that we (here I expected him to say- would learn how to see without glasses, for what truth really is, but instead he said we) would learn how the glasses that weren't Judeo-Christian colored our views falsely, that only Judeo-Christianism colored it right.
Since that time I have completely failed to understand how a person can willingly subject themselves to such bias, whether it be from a secular, religious, or any other perspective. I've failed to understand how a person can buy into an idea, way of life, or course of action without reaching it by honest, personal conviction and experience, and even having reached it that way, was not open to learning that they had made a mistake.
The worst part about it, is that such people are not often witness to many of the ultimate consequences of their blind propagation. Being a person who is not willing to accept someone else's word for it, I put myself in situations that have allowed me to see many of these consequences. If any of them were to be in my place, see the results of their culture wars and still strut about as they do, then they truly deserve the title of bigot.
finding focus
Submitted by chris heuertz (not verified) on Thu Nov. 26, 2009 2:07 PM PST.
Ironically, it would have been better for Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite if they had been objectified in the Deadly Viper controversy, but it appears they were mistakenly made the subject of the discussion.
If I understand all this correctly (and for the record, I am an ancillary vested person in this story, click here to read my own post re: all this), they touched a very sensitive nerve that (not only) the Asian American community has experienced in a “white captivity” culture—one that they have been grappling to put words to.
The tragedy is that rather than making the subject a conversation around cultivating sensitivity to humanizing all people regardless of race, culture or ethnicity, the tone and the target of these wounds were aimed at two guys who were actually contributing to a conversation towards integrity, character and the affirmation of human dignity for all persons.
I am a huge fan of Prof Rah and think his message needs to get out further to provoke a more grounded sense of our Christian identity as it relates to the shifting (actually, shifted) demographic in the mosaic of who actually makes up our Christian majority. But I am also a huge fan of what the Deadly Viper project was advocating for, not only in its content, but how the message of integrity, character and grace was embodied in the lives of Mike and Jud. It is sad how two important messages collided and the fallout that has been an unintended consequence of this collision.
Let’s hope that everyone who made hurtful or accusatory statements about Mike and Jud, reconsider the content and tone of those unfair allegations. Much of the content I’ve read in the comment sections on blogs regarding all this has been unhelpful assumptions. These assumptions have only aggravated a sensitive conversation that needs to be played out. However, this important conversation should be held around more harmful eruptions of cultural insensitivity (i.e. the “Rickshaw Rally”) that somehow are left immune to the controversy Deadly Vipers unintentionally invited.
Let’s also remember that Mike and Jud should not be the targets of this dialogue. If people want to pick fights here, there are plenty of other legitimate instances of racial insensitivity that are more important and appropriate instances that can be focused on.
A positive outcome from all this would be an overwhelming level of support for Mike and Jud as the move away from the packaging of Deadly Vipers to their People of a Second Chance movement. A platform they have created for others that now needs to be extended to them, especially by those who have been so accusatory in the ways they’ve dismantled an important voice of renewal for our shared humanity.
The essence of how I hope all this comes across speaks to the crucial need to humanize all people—the Asian American community and Mike and Jud. I think there’s a way that Prof Rah’s (and other’s) concerns can be, and need to be validated, but not at the expense of Mike and Jud—otherwise, the same thing that Deadly Vipers has been accused of will be done to them by those who are most concerned.
Overall, I believe this has been a sad eruption of anger around an important issue that seems to have been misdirected at two guys who have given themselves to a much-needed message of hope. I think resistance to “white captivity,” or the imposition of any dominant consciousness of our Christian expression needs to be fought against, but not at the expense of the reputation and content of men whose message resonates with this struggle from a different perspective.
*If you’d like to discuss this or comment on these thoughts please leave them here (http://www.chrisheuertz.com/post/257436160/further-reflections-on-the-de...)*
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
