Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, April 18, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan

Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

E

very 
morning, 
after 
numerous unsuccessful 
attempts to throw off 
my covers and get up, I make 
myself a bowl of oatmeal, discard 
the trash and then start my day. 
What happens to the fate of my 
waste never even crosses my 
mind — it is the whole concept of 
out of sight, out of mind. In fact, 
I never really consider the final 
destination of any of the trash I 
produce. Except that trash does 
have to go somewhere. Early 
into my science, technology, 
engineering and math education 
I learned the law of conservation 
of mass, which posits mass 
cannot be created nor destroyed.
From food to toys, necessities 
to nonessentials, almost every 
product comes with its share of 
trash content. For this reason, 
on a typical day the average 
American citizen will produce 
4.40 pounds of trash. Of the 
trash produced, 2.91 pounds 
is waste as the other trash 
contents can either be recycled 
or composted. Multiply that by 
the 327,200,000 people you have 
living in the United States, and 
you are left with 476,076 tons of 
trash produced daily. With my 
elementary knowledge of science, 
I can ascertain that, though my 
trash is out of my hands, it is not 
off the planet. Additionally, with 
my rudimentary understanding 
of American infrastructure, I can 
assume my trash ends up lining 
a landfill somewhere on the 
outskirts of my community.
If you have ever been to one 
of these landfills, chances are 
you have seen the hundreds of 
birds that frequent the area and 
feast on the waste created from 
human consumption. Honestly, 
I never even thought about 
the implications of these birds 
until I read a study published by 
researchers at Duke University. 
The study shines a light on 
just how detrimental the birds 
may be to the environment. 
The reason why this is the 
case relates to a pretty juvenile 
concept 
that 
I 
learned 
in 
preschool: 
Everybody 
poops. 
Duke researchers estimated that 
over 1.4 million seagulls feed at 
landfills across North America, 
but Scott Winston, one of the lead 
researchers, believes “the actual 
population is probably greater 
than 5 million.” These birds 

consume our trash and evidently 
have to poop it out somewhere. 
This somewhere is not just the 
back of our brand-new shirt, 
but often bodies of water like 
lakes and rivers near our homes. 
Estimates from Duke say this 
trash ridden fecal matter deposits 
an additional 240 tons of nitrogen 
and 39 tons of phosphorus into 
our local waterways every year 
and as mentioned, the effects are 
drastic.
The 
added 
nutrients 
defecated 
into 
the 
lakes 
and 
rivers 
supplement 
eutrophication, which causes 
a dense growth of plant life, 
such as algae, limiting the 
oxygen 
contents 
needed 
to 
sustain 
healthy 
ecosystems 
and maintain aquatic life under 
the surface. This suppression 
of oxygen content to the life 
below the growth suffocates the 
animals and kills them as they 
do not have access to enough 
dissolved oxygen. The effects are 
ecologically and economically 
tragic as they degrade water 
supply and destroy aquaculture. 
This then means government 
money will be allocated to 
the problem, which results in 
financial losses. As the U.S. and 
global population continues to 
grow, these problems will likely 
only become exacerbated.
Therefore, 
change 
is 
pertinent, and solutions must 
be 
found 
to 
mitigate 
the 
transportation of these excess 
nutrients in our water. According 
to the study, researchers believe 
the best solution is to reduce 
the size of landfills, cover trash 
more quickly or reduce the gull 
population. 
However, 
these 
solutions feel temporary and I 
believe for long lasting impact 
we have to mimic nature. What 
I mean is that in the real world 
there is no landfill. Instead, 
materials 
are 
consistently 
reused. Additionally, as species 
die, their nutrients are given 
back to the Earth and create 
more life. Animals live in a 
closed-loop: 
Nothing 
seems 
to enter or leave the system, 
everything just cycles back. This 
cyclical model has sustained 
life for billions of years, yet 
the modern era of humans has 
instituted a linear lifestyle as we 
take, make and dispose.
Which poses the question: 

How do we disrupt this cycle 
and fight the problem at its core? 
From an early age I was told 
taught the three R’s as a way to 
solve this problem. My teachers 
encouraged me to reduce, reuse 
and recycle, but this solution 
just doesn’t cut it. As a capitalist 
society fueled by materialistic 
gain, reducing looks great on 
paper, but it is not a feasible 
solution. Since 1950 the average 
home size has almost tripled, 
making more room for material 
goods and in turn moving in the 
opposite direction of reductions 
and making for an “irresponsible 
American dream.” In terms of 
reusing, for that I prompt the 
question, when is the last time 
you actually recommissioned a 
product instead of donating it 
to the dump? Additionally, we 
are getting better at recycling, 
but 
with 
China’s 
ban 
on 
foreign waste recyclables, used 
products are forming stockpiles 
and going to waste before they 
are even repurposed. Moreover, 
when they are repurposed, it is 
typically only once before they 
eventually end up in a landfill.
This 
all 
prompts 
the 
question: What can we do to 
mitigate trash intake and in 
turn save the world? There is 
no simple answer or perfect 
solution. Humans are needy 
creatures who constantly take 
while leaving. The trash issue 
permeating America and beyond 
reminds me of a 1971 Pogo Earth 
Day comic strip from Walt Kelly. 
Porkypine says, “Ah, Pogo, the 
beauty of the forest primeval 
gets me in the heart.” Pogo 
responds, “It gets me in the 
feet, Porkypine.” Then, looking 
over a forest of trash Porkypine 
despairingly says, “It is hard 
walkin’ on this stuff” to which 
Pogo responds “Yep, son, we 
have met the enemy and he is 
us.” With no radical changes to 
our consumption or material 
habits, we will soon live in a 
world of trash and deal with 
the effects on humanity, the 
environment and every other 
facet of society imaginable. 
Trash does not leave the Earth 
— I know this from elementary 
school. But what if trash could 
never enter?

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

The parent trap: Asian edition
2

018 and 2019 have thus far 
been milestone years for 
Asian Americans in the 
entertainment industry. The 2018 
smash-hit “Crazy Rich Asians” 
was the first Hollywood movie 
since “The Joy Luck Club,” released 
over two decades ago, to feature all 
Asian American leads. The movie 
brought in more money than any 
rom-com released in the last nine 
years. Actress Sandra Oh won a 
Golden Globe for Best Actress in a 
Drama TV Series, making her the 
first actress of Asian descent to win 
for a leading role, or win multiple 
Globes, in nearly 40 years. Oh also 
hosted the event, using her platform 
to jokingly call out actress Emma 
Stone for her largely unquestioned 
white-washed role as an Asian 
American character in “Aloha.” 
When Awkwafina hosted Saturday 
Night Live in 2018, she was the first 
Asian American woman to do so 
since Lucy Liu in 2000; Sandra Oh 
hosted in March of this year.
Even outside of Hollywood, 
stars of Asian descent have risen 
to celebrity status in the United 
States. K-pop group BTS has made 
appearances on noteworthy shows 
such as Saturday Night Live, The 
Tonight Show, Jimmy Kimmel 
Live!, Ellen and more. They have 
also performed at the 2018 Billboard 
Music Awards, Dick Clark’s New 
Year’s Rockin’ Eve, as well as 
various other programs. They are 
scheduled to perform their new 
single “Boy with Luv” with Halsey 
at the 2019 Billboard Music Awards.
Another prominent K-pop group, 
BLACKPINK, appeared on Strahan 
and Sara, The Late Show with 
Stephen Colbert, Good Morning 
America and recently performed at 
Coachella.
While these trends suggest 
that American popular culture is 
becoming more welcoming toward 
people of color, there remains 
a trend among the treatment of 
Asian American celebrities on TV 
appearances that point towards 
an inability to see them as Asian 
Americans, rather than as Asians. 
Unlike white people or other 
people of color, Asian Americans, 
as well as people of Asian descent 
and of other nationalities such as 
Asian Canadians, are often asked 
about their parents. While Indian 
Canadians are of course subjected 
to a different set of social norms 
specific to Canada, all people of 
Asian descent tend to always be seen 
strictly as being only Asian, whether 
they’re Canadian, American, or of 
another nationality. Thus, while 
Americans and Canadians are the 
most prominent celebrities of Asian 
descent in American media, any 
person of Asian descent and of a 
non-Asian nationality would likely 
receive the same treatment were 
they to be thrust into the spotlight 
in American culture. While this 
may be unintentional on the 
parts of TV hosts, such questions 
are 
problematic 
because 
they 
demonstrate how public figures 
of Asian descent, even at the most 
successful they have ever been, are 
othered by American media.
Indian-American 
comedian 
Hasan Minhaj recently appeared 
on Ellen. At one point during his 
interview, Ellen mentioned that his 
parents, Seema and Najme, were in 
the audience before asking Hasan, 
“So, when did you start in stand-up 
and how supportive were they?” 
while briefly pointing to his parents. 
This question was most likely pre-
planned between Minhaj and Ellen, 
especially given that his parents 
were in the audience and Minhaj 
launched into a story following the 
question that he’s told before on the 

Deep Cuts segment of his Netflix 
show, Patriot Act.
However, Ellen also asked actor 
Steven Yeun, who is also Asian 
American, about his parents when 
he appeared on the show in 2014, 
commenting, “So your parents — 
then your parents were not happy 
that you chose this profession.” She 
asked him this after clarifying that 
he was born in Seoul, South Korea 
before moving to Saskatchewan and 
later to Michigan. Furthermore, 
when Sandra Oh first appeared on 
the Ellen Show in in 2007, Ellen 
started the interview by bringing 
up a photo of Oh and her parents at 
the Emmys, telling her, “They must 
be so proud.” Ellen then asked more 
questions about when Oh’s parents 
immigrated to Canada, before 
asking, “Were they proud like right 
away? They were like, ‘Go and be an 
actress.’”

Such 
interviews 
contrast 
harshly with when Ellen has spoken 
with celebrities not of Asian descent 
on her show, such as her interview 
with Zendaya, a Black actress. 
Rather than asking whether her 
parents supported her career, Ellen 
conversed with Zendaya about 
her relationship with her parents 
instead. At one point, Ellen asked, 
“how have you managed to stay out 
of the young-child-actor-going-bad 
thing?” Even though this would 
have made a natural segue to asking 
about Zendaya about her parents’ 
support (there were no such natural 
transitions when Ellen abruptly 
asked Minhaj, Yeun and Oh about 
their parents), she didn’t do so. In 
another interview with Allison 
Janney, a white actress, Ellen didn’t 
ask any questions about her parents 
support either, even though Janney 
brought them up in the interview 
while talking about the holidays.
Ellen’s need to ask only her 
guests of Asian descent about their 
parents’ support, even when doing 
so doesn’t fit in with the rest of 
the interview, shows that there 
still exists a clear divide between 
how celebrities of Asian descent 
and other celebrities are perceived 
in American media. Unlike other 
stars, celebrities of Asian descent 
are not acknowledged as having 
diverse 
backgrounds 
and 
are 
instead characterized by their 
Asian immigrant parents. This 
perpetuates 
the 
misconception 
that all people of Asian descent 
are homogeneous and reminds 
audiences that they have immigrant 
roots, which in turn implies 
that they belong in Asia, not the 
United States. Thus, when Ellen 
asks guests like Yeun and Oh 
about their parents’ support, she 
simultaneously reduces them to 
props to confirm American society’s 
stereotypes about people of Asian 
descent and puts their identities 
into question.
Even when they aren’t asked 
about their parents’ support or lack 
thereof, talk show hosts always 
seem to find a way to ask celebrities 
of Asian descent about their parents: 
Conan asked Yeun’s parents how 
they reacted to his love scenes on 
The Walking Dead, Jimmy Kimmel 
asked Asian Canadian comedian 

Lilly Singh about her parents after 
she appeared on his show and 
Jimmy Fallon asked Singh about 
her skits where she imitates her 
parents, rather than her numerous 
other segments.
Celebrities such as Yeun’s and 
Singh’s success in the United States 
is mostly unprecedented, since 
there have historically only been 
a few celebrities of Asian descent 
in American culture and even 
fewer who reach this same level of 
prominence. As a result, TV hosts 
struggle to reconcile the Asian 
parts of these celebrities’ identities 
with the American part. Because 
the only “Asian American story” 
they are familiar with is that of the 
immigrant, or child with immigrant 
parents, interviewers such as Ellen 
ask celebrities of Asian descent 
about 
their 
parents’ 
support, 
expecting them to explain that 
their immigrant parents were not 
supportive and then delve into their 
parents’ “immigrant story.” 
However, 
such 
questions 
also establish celebrities of Asian 
decent as “others,” whose roles 
in American society is to bolster 
the 
United 
States’ 
reputation 
as a country where anyone can 
succeed. Ellen wasn’t interested in 
Oh or Minhaj’s parents as actual 
people when she asked about them. 
She was interested in how they 
fulfill their stereotypical roles as 
immigrant tiger parents whose 
exterior eventually cracks when 
they see how the United States has 
allowed their children to succeed. 
Questions about parents ultimately 
undermine 
the 
American 
or 
Canadian part of these celebrities’ 
identities, and depict them as being 
only Asian.
This 
explains 
why 
such 
questions are limited to only 
celebrities 
of 
Asian 
descent 
who grew up in predominantly 
English 
speaking 
countries. 
Neither members of BTS nor 
BLACKPINK have been asked 
questions about their parents 
in any of their interviews in the 
United States. This is because their 
otherness is already established. 
They are Korean, not American, 
and they perform K-pop, which is 
decidedly not an American music 
genre. Thus, there’s no need for 
TV hosts to remind themselves or 
their guests of the artists’ roots in 
Asia, or attempt to reconcile any 
complex parts of their identities. 
They also may have no idea that 
BLACKPINK members Rosé and 
Lisa are Korean-Australian and 
Thai respectively, since it is likely 
that they assume all K-pop artists 
are Korean.
TV hosts need to stop asking 
celebrities of Asian descent about 
their parents. They need to stop 
expecting them to talk about 
their ethnicities and their own or 
parents’ stories as immigrants. 
Such stories are deeply personal, 
and while all of the celebrities 
mentioned in this article have 
seemed open to speaking about 
these topics, such questions often 
feel invasive and act in the same 
way that a huge, blaring, “You don’t 
belong here” sign would. There 
are more to these celebrities than 
their parents or their ethnicities, 
and while such parts of their story 
are important, they should not 
feel obligated to speak about their 
“immigrant backstories” because 
they are of Asian descent. There’s 
so much more to people of Asian 
descent than their ancestry, and 
it’s high time America recognizes 
that.

I 

rediscovered 
composer 
Johann Sebastian Bach’s 
cello suites this past fall 
during a period with lots of 
work and little motivation. I 
needed something to focus my 
mind on the tasks at hand. So, I 
turned to Bach to aid my quest 
for concentration. It ultimately 
worked, and soon his cello 
suites became a powerful study 
tool, allowing me to spend 
hours on work that seemed 
insurmountable before.
Viewing Bach as a study tool, 
not as sublime art, is a product 
of a culture that encourages 
us to spend much of our time 
in what I call Haze. Haze is 
marked by semi-consciousness 
usually for the purpose of work. 
It is the cousin of Flow (or 
being in “the zone”), a mental 
state characterized by clear, 
prolonged attention to a task. 
Flow arises naturally, usually 
when you are doing something 
challenging 
and 
rewarding. 
Haze is artificial and forced. 
And it’s the default mental state 
of our generation.
Our days are spent with 
earbuds in, never fully listening, 
but always with a companion 
muffling any thoughts we may 
have. Our social media addiction 
serves 
the 
same 
purpose. 
Scrolling, 
liking, 
refreshing, 
never just sitting and thinking. 
Work is mind-numbingly long, 
fueled by tools ranging from 
Bach to Adderall and adheres to 
the glorification of the “rise and 
grind” mentality.
We 
know 
we’re 
missing 
out 
on 
something. 
That’s 
why we practice 20 minutes 
of mindfulness every day — a 
window of clarity. But even 
that is labeled as “self-care,” an 
opportunity to “recharge” for 
the work ahead.
How did we get here?
As Anne Petersen explains 
in “How Millennials Became 

The 
Burnout 
Generation”, 
millennials (defined here as 
mostly white, largely middle 
class) were raised to expect that 
overachievement would lead to 
the good life. But that promise 
has not been kept. No longer is 
a college education the ticket 
to a stable job, and no longer is 
a stable job enough. That stable 
job also needs to be “cool” and 
something 
you’re 
passionate 
about. 
So, 
we 
optimize, 
constantly angling for The Job, 
racking up resumé stuffers as 
we go.
This 
culture 
is 
self-
reinforcing — as more people 
adopt it, others are forced to 
adopt in order to compete, 
and soon we’re stuck in place, 
but working harder than ever 
before. Companies are the main 
beneficiaries of this race to 
nowhere, reaping profits from a 
talent pool that does more and 
demands less.
To cope, we tell ourselves 
we love work, and that our 
work is meaningful. Companies 
have caught on, rebranding 
themselves with slogans that 
are versions of “making the 
world a better place.” Dropbox, 
a company that lets you upload 
files, says its purpose is to 
“unleash the world’s creative 
energy by designing a more 
enlightened way of working.” 
WeWork 
locations 
are 
monuments to hustle culture. 
Water coolers are branded with 
statements like “Don’t stop 
when you’re tired. Stop when 
you are done,” and neon signs 
urge you to “Do what you love” 
and “Hustle harder.”
It’s no coincidence that Haze 
is a contemporary affliction. 
In the age of Silicon Valley, 
there are no clear lines between 
work and play. Email and Slack 
ensure employees are always 
accessible, while technologies 
once 
reserved 
for 
social 

interactions are increasingly 
being used to create a personal 
brand. We show off our fun 
side on Snapchat, document 
our travels and interests on 
Instagram, 
get 
political 
on 
Twitter and perfect the humble 
brag on LinkedIn. Maintaining 
this brand takes time and 
energy, 
ensuring 
we 
are 
constantly performing, never 
simply doing.
This is a culture where 
as 
Anne 
Petersen 
puts 
it, 
“Everything that’s good is bad, 
everything that’s bad is good.” 
Everything that should feel 
good, like not working, feels 
bad, 
while 
everything 
that 
should feel bad, like working all 
the time, feels good.
So 
hobbies 
have 
become 
hustles. Pursuing something 
you merely enjoy has become 
pointless, 
even 
selfish. 
We 
should 
rather 
pursue 
what 
we’re good at, monetizing it or 
using it to help someone else. 
What leisure time we do have 
is dedicated to screens, because 
they are low commitment and 
Haze inducing.
Becoming 
aware 
of 
all 
this is comforting. It helps to 
explain some of my habits, 
making them not inevitable or 
intrinsic, but simply products of 
a common, but not inescapable 
environment. We can choose 
a different path. A path where 
Bach is art to be cherished, not 
a tool to be wielded. A path 
where self-reflection and Flow 
are the rule – not the exception. 
This reminds me of a quote 
from Mitch Albom’s memoir 
“Tuesdays 
with 
Morrie.” 
Albom’s 
beloved 
Professor 
Morrie advises that “you have 
to be strong enough to say if the 
culture doesn’t work, don’t buy 
it. Create your own.”

Fighting “the Haze”

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu.

How to battle the ebb and flow of trash

CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN

Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be 

reached at chandrn@umich.edu.

Sam Sugerman can be reached at 

samsug@umich.edu.

SAM SUGERMAN | COLUMN

Public figures of Asian 

descent, even at the 

most successful they’ve 

ever been, are othered 

by the American media