As I have watched the controversy over the naming of the Story Road business district unfold over the past few months, it has brought up many interesting issues about cultural sensitivities, political correctness, memories and what names can mean and represent. At first, as I watched this firestorm brew, it reminded me of the Fallon statue and the controversy that erupted over a symbol of what some called American imperialism and others called a piece of history. But in this case, it is a name that has lit a fire under many Vietnamese residents—so much so that I can’t remember any other issue in our city that has been this heated for a long time.
I think the situation was handled poorly from the get-go. If the council had learned the lesson from the Fallon statue fiasco, they would have known that deciding on a name before going public is the kiss of death for any city project. Though it may not have been their intent to decide in secret, citizens feel duped or left out of the process when the council takes certain liberties without public input. Isn’t there a process in place for determining the feelings of the majority?
In this case, the city council did not foresee the sensitivity, but they should have. The whole situation could have been avoided by a little legwork up front. Though this issue is taking up more of the council’s time than necessary, they should have understood that the name “Saigon” was important for a good reason. It represents all that was once good in the lives of Vietnamese refugees. It represents a piece of them that we cannot quite grasp because many of us on this blog site were born under the American flag. It’s hard enough to get things done in San Jose as it is, and City Hall needs to be smart when naming anything in the city, placing statues or touching any piece of the past.
It’s come to a point where certain people don’t want to backpedal or appear to “give in” to the wishes of others. Let’s give the people what they want in this case, and then move forward and learn from our mistakes—again.
SG,
If you think about it; the council has our attention off the real issue – our city budget!
At least they pay attention to how George W works.
Single Gal makes several impressive points and needs to be congratulated for her thoughtful analysis.
1. The City Council did not forsee the cultural sensitivity on this issue. SPOT ON, SINGLE GAL!!
2. In one of her best written blogs of her tenure as the “hipest” blogger on SJI, Single Gal accurately demonstrates how a little legwork would have done the trick.
Cultural sensitivity is an important thing. In 1989, a San Jose Commissioner named Peter Campbell laughed in the face of Irish Americans when they simply asked for cultural respect, and now he writes about keeping them out his neighborhood.
May the Sun bless the back of ye, Single Gal, as ye are a darling woman!!
they should have understood that the name “Saigon” was important for a good reason
They did, and approved a name with “Saigon” in it.
I understand the cultural sensitivity, however, I’m for leaving streets named as they were originally, including the change that produced Woz Way. I have no problem with naming a new street or development after a cause or person that contributed to our city. I do think Mayor Reed is being held hostage on this one and empathize with Madison Nguyen.
“Let’s give the people what they want…”
Which people? The ones making all the noise or the majority who oppose them?
Don’t you find it a bit unfair to blame the council for the actions of the Little Saigon protesters?
I hope our council has the political courage to stand up to the unfair pressure tactics used by the Little Saigon faction. This issue needs to be decided not by the council and certainly not by the protesters. It should be decided by the owners of the businesses in the proposed business district.
Note to SJ Inside readers/bloggers:
I am 1/4 Irish.
Pete Campbell
Naming that business district there in your city to light up the community and use up space on your local papers was brilliant; great way to distract the voters, keep their eye off the ball. It’s much easier to move he money, line up the big projects and slide stuff through when they’re all fired up over emotional and sensitive issues. That’s one right out of my play book. And no; you don’t have to thank me.
Anyone taking odds on if/when the Council will cave to the demands of those holding the city hostage? Political courage? Probably won’t find it under the dome tonight.
If it is named Little Saigon there will have to be an * after the name to explain how unrepresentative this name really is.
Too bad San Jose. Too bad Vietnamese community. Too bad for all of us. Whatever happened to San Jose being a big city? Apparently that only applies to population and not maturity.
The City needs the money. Put it back into the city treasury. Hire some poilce officers. Stop all this diversionary B.S.!
#6 and 9 make very intersting points. In a city of nearly 1 million people, how could a small but very, very vocal minority all of a sudden become the “voice” of the people? This isn’t the first time this has happened…and probably won’t be the last. It seems that if you could gather, say, 200-400 people, have them pack city council meetings and yell, scream, and wave banners, that somehow they’ll become the “voice” of all San Jose citizens (see ballpark EIR hearings). Does this phenomenon occur in other major American city’s?
If my history serves me correctly, naming districts after ethnic and religions minorities was a way that Dominant Ethnic and Religious Majorities marginalized and stigmatized minorities by forcing them into defined areas. Juderias in Spain. Japantowns. Chinatowns. European ghettos. Can somebody explain to my why, for goodness’ sake, we want to appropriate this *totally offensive* district-naming convention for a modern city that supposedly is color/race/religion blind? I know that “Little Saigon” or whatever isn’t attempting to ghetto-ize valiant Vietnamese Americans, but can we find another way to honor the group t other than appropriating a palpably racist and divisive naming convention?
12 – Just a guess, but could it be because we are moving backwards as a city and a society?
Note to Chuck and Madison,
Sometimes you just have to pull the bandaid off quickly to limit the pain. You know your going to have to pull it off anyway. Just get it over with.
Learn to love “Little Saigon” and move on.
#14
Unfortunately, settling for “Little Saigon” sets a bad precedent. Members of the Vietnamese community have acted very irresponsible and immature during this debacle.
After they realize that by screaming, yelling, and throwing tantrums they can get want they want they will soon be clamoring for more. More than likely, their new demands will also be for some trivial, irrelevant issue.
MC #6 writes:
“Which people? The ones making all the noise or the majority who oppose them?”
The ones making all the noise are the only ones who care about this. Does anyone know somebody who actually favors “Saigon Business District?” The “majority” doesn’t give a whit either way, but thinks this debate has gone on way too long.
“Don’t you find it a bit unfair to blame the council for the actions of the Little Saigon protesters?”
Unfair? No. The city shouldn’t be involved at all. Let the neighborhood call itself whatever it wants and pay for the signs themselves.
“hope our council has the political courage to stand up to the unfair pressure tactics used by the Little Saigon faction. This issue needs to be decided not by the council and certainly not by the protesters. It should be decided by the owners of the businesses in the proposed business district.”
Agree on the last sentence. But why does the council need to “stand up” to anyone. All the council needs to do is rescind their recent vote and leave the issue alone for the neighborhood to sort out.
PLEEEZE, no more on this “issue”
Again last night we saw the same trademark tactics of the Vietnamese. Wear them down and don’t let up until they cave in. This is why over 30 years ago when it was clear the war was never going to end, we walked away.
Again last night out of the hundreds of speakers, not one of them offered a reasonable and understandable explanation of why the word “little” is so important. All they did was make demands. Channel 26 was appointment TV last night! I was yelling at the tube when some of the most angry protesters had the podium, saying “why don’t you take your shoe off and pound the podium with it?” because their attitude was so revoltingly uncompromising and hostile. I was also scratching my head over the group’s push once again for “Little Saigon” when the purpose of last night’s meeting was to rescind the 11/20 vote, not vote on a different name. It was another circus, another very embarassing incident for the Vietnamese community.
We cannot allow this type of tactic to be successful for this group or we will see more of the same when another issue comes up. This group needs to learn how to behave. As the younger generations of Vietnamese who were born in the U.S. mature and the old country types’ numbers continue to diminish, perhaps a civilized discourse on issues impacting the Vietnamese community will someday be possible. Until then, we cannot have our Council being bullied into accommodating an angry mob.
It seems to me that the council made the right decision last night.
Single Gal has it right that cultural sensitivity is the touchstone issue—but she pointing her finger the wrong direction.
The ‘Little Saigon’ movement was the most culturally insensitive, culturally secluded, non-inclusive movement I have ever seen happen in my lifetime. To see anything like it, I have to go back to black and white films.
The group constantly argued about what they deserved—not what is best for San Jose. They speak at length about what the name means to them—not what it should mean to me. They refused to reach out and gain support from any non-Vietnamese groups, even in their own district. They attacked their opponents furiously and without sensitivity to consequences. And their repeated attempts to gain ‘consensus’ never included opinions outside their own ranks.
What we witnessed for the last 5 months was cultural insensitivity and cultural isolationism taken to a Platonic ideal. And that’s before you even take City Hall into account.
I’m saddened that Councilman Oliverio wanted to see them rewarded for this behavior.
We should care about Little Saigon issues since it points out what is wrong with our city government ? Who Should
1) City set up name business district process and people followed it and then Council ignored votes – yea only few returned votes of 1000+ sent out but only those who voted counted
2) Council member ignored large group of her district residents and yea residents many don’t care what it is called
3) Mayor played politics on Little Saigon and Library porn so he can have votes for what he wants against labor
4) Another Brown act violation – lately almost weekly event
5) Vietnamese groups are playing politics between 2 real estate / business groups on who controls Council decisions that add profits to them Madison backed by 1 group Her opponents by another It will play out in either recall or next election
6) Mercury again doesn’t understand issues and has been insulting to Vietnamese community
7) Mayor continues to make political mistakes and made situation worst and still does not get it
8) Vietnamese are angry since they played by rules and Council did a ” back room deal ” for Madison who’s giant ego and commitment to campaign supporters will not let her back down
9) Council is angry since they were again caught in another ” back room”, Brown Act violation and looking foolish
10 We welcome the Vietnamese Community to San Jose small town insider politics where elected officials give taxes and Council decisions to friends, campaign supporters and insiders