From: sedayao@sousa.intel.com (Jeff Sedayao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: What does IT really mean? (was Re: So this is Christmas?)
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:57:40 GMT
Reply-To: sedayao@chopin.intel.com
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies

In article <1992Dec28.071044.11768@panix.com>, sieh@panix.com (Liquid Tide with Bleach) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> And that's the point here.  The Future.  Just about every single article that
> is posted here in some way or another deals with exactly that question.  What
> is the future going to be and its followup, how are we going to get there.  I
> have noted especially this year a more strident tone concerning the underlying
> question of "Who is going to be a part of that future".  Granted that this is
> a soc group with a particular focus, it still does not excuse us for being
> inwardly looking and parochial.  The "We" that is being discussed is not
> Asian Americans.  Asian America is not under discussion; it's America that is
> the topic of discussion.  So long as we limit ourselves in thinking this way,
> we will never make progress.  So long as we continue thinking in old paradigms
> instead of new ones, the Cycle will never be broken.  No one will learn from
> History and people will continue making the same old mistakes that our 
> predecessors made while they tried to improve their society.  Remember that
> when we say "Discrimination is wrong" and hold that to be a guiding principle
> toward a more egalitarian society, we mean exactly that.  Unfortunately, too
> many people who say "Discrimination is wrong" actually mean, "Discrimination
> is wrong except for "us/we/I" because "we/I" are/am different, exceptional, 
> extraordinary or special etc".  This here is what has been going on more 
> and more much to my consternation.

I have two reactions to this.  The first is that you are trying to gloss over
differences that are very very real.  The second is that if you think that
looking at Asian America is parochial, you could also argue that looking just
at America is equally parochial.

Regarding differences and discrimination:  I would agree with you (and with 
"Communitarian" thought) that constantly dwelling on differences and rights 
can be detrimental to everyone.  But differences are often real and cannot
be ignored.  The call to subordinate rights to other concerns rings hollow
to those who have never fully enjoyed those rights.

Differences must be dealt with.  Earlier this year, my sister-in-law was selling
her townhouse.  Many Chinese-Americans would like the place, but they would
refuse to make an offer because they did not like the numerology of the townhouse's
address.  This happened several times.  I recently read that many local housing 
developers are now making sure that addresses of new houses are not objectionable 
(in a Chinese numerology sense).  Are these developers wrong to change their 
addresses?  I don't think so.  They noticed differences in address tastes, knew 
that Chinese-Americans are a force in local real estate, and dealt with it.  This 
doesn't seem parochial.  It seems to me that the developers are using a new 
paradigm.

Your comments about disrimination remind me of problems with the glass ceiling
at Intel.  As a result of the "glass ceiling," many Asian engineers would get
frustrated and leave the company.  This grew to hurt Intel, as the company would
lose good people who would go and start their own companies.  The founder of
Mitac (a Taiwanese company) started at Intel and is doing very well.  Intel
studied the problem.  They concluded (some may disagree) that the problems resulted
from a lack of familiarity with American business culture and lack of sensitivity
to the work styles of many Asian engineers.  Intel put together a class on American
business culture targeted at foreign born workers.  They also made everyone go
through a course on cultural sensitivity, and they hired a diversity coordinator.
I can't claim that everything is rosy at Intel, but I feel somewhat assured that
the manager three levels above me is Asian American.  Is Intel engaging in
some kind of evil discrimination?  It seems to me that they are simply solving a 
problem in a very practical way.  I don't think they these actions make the company
less egalitarian - instead, I think that the playing field is being levelled.

As for parochialism, I say, why stop at America?  Why don't we look at a global
context?  There is a article by Benjamin Barber in the March 1992 ATLANTIC 
MONTHLY called "Jihad Vs. McWorld".  It argues that the there are two axial
trends in our age - tribalism (Jihad) and globalism (McWorld).  Jihad is the
tribal forces - nationalistic, divisive, "us vs. them" thinking.  McWorld is the
forces for compressing the nations of the world together - economic integration,
ecological problems that demand joint action, telecommunication networks that
make the world smaller.  Jihad works at separation, while McWorld works at homo-
genation.  Barber says that both trends are bad for democracy.  He also guesses
that in the end, McWorld (more of a homogenized world) will win out.  Where does
that put "Pan Asian-Americanism"?  Is it a McWorld phenomena or a Jihad phenomena?
If it is a tribalistic movement, is it really hopeless, as Barber claims?

[more deleted]

> I've also found myself reading a lot of West Coaster's posts and thinking to
> myself as they do probably with mine, "what the hell is s/he talking about?".  
> Recently, I came across in the NYT, a very interesting census map of Asia
> America.  There were 3 major pockets in California, the Chicago metro area,
> and the New York City metro area with a few pockets spread across various
> southern states near major cities (ie. Houston).  Even in NYC, the percentage
> of Asian Americans living here is much lower than in California.  So, may I 
> gently chastize my West Coast Asian Americans to be more cognizant of the 
> fact that your perspective of reality is not really close to what the rest 
> of America really is.  While my New York City view isn't the best either, 
> I would argue that it's a lot closer than yours.  The political game is much
> different and calls for a whole new set of methods and thinking.  What works
> with California will most assuredly not work for elsewhere mostly because of
> the lack of geographic concentration of Asian Americans.  This also can help
> explain my sceptical view toward Pan-Asian Americanists.

I would be interested in knowing where most of Asian Americans live.  Do the
majority of Asian Americans live in California?  If they do (and I think they
do), then what we "West Coasters" post about may apply to the majority of 
Asian Americans (I don't mean to belittle anyone else's experiences, though).  
Your point about the rest of America is well taken, although
I would argue that as California has 10% of the nation's population, what happens 
in California may eventually spread to the rest of the country (for better or for
worse).  The kind of tensions that lead to the L.A. riots are not unique to
California.  (An aside - some writers in Los Angeles argue that the fact the
California does set trends is ignored by Eastern establish media.)

[more deleted]
 
> Best of luck and good health to all.  And to those who I've crossed swords 
> with over the years, may we do so again at a different time and place.

I must say that you bring up many interesting points.  You made me
unusually long winded today!

> Best wishes and Happy New Year,

Same to you.

> //Lui Sieh
> -- 
> [signature presently under new management.  Free rental 
> space available here.  Please inquire.  sieh@panix.com]

-- 
Jeff Sedayao
Intel Corporation
sedayao@chopin.intel.com
..!uunet!intelhf!chopin!sedayao
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american