From: shaw@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Andy Shaw)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Perceptions, Realities, Perceptions
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:24:32 GMT
	<SHAW.92Aug25023045@whopper.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug25.142037.24448@panix.com>
Distribution: soc
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass.

In article <1992Aug25.142037.24448@panix.com> sieh@panix.com (Twinkie Chinkie) writes:
   You, Andy, still don't get it (at least get my point)!  As I also said in
   another previous article, our differences lie in the fact that _your_ group
   is based on color/ethnicity--the "Asian American community".  _My_ group is
   _not_ based on color/ethnicty but rather people who may have, similar social
   status, similar economic status, similar political beliefs, similar
   philosophical ideas, similar regional base, and yes, sometimes similar ethnic
   background and color (ick) among other things.

We are probably arguing past each other at this point Lui -- I believe that
there is a need for a group, some group, some identity in the United
States, at this point in time called "Asian Americans".  I do not believe
that this group should represent _all_ of the aspects of _all_ of its
supposed members _all_ the time -- clearly, we are all members of many
different groups, which we take to represent us at different times.  I am
not primarily defined by my skin color, but my experiences in life tell me
that my skin color, my "Asian American-ness", is a very important part of
my definition.

This may be an artifact of the point in history we are in now: 50 years
from now, "Asian American-ness" may not be so important -- in fact, I am
certain that it won't be so important (but still a factor).  That does not
diminish my experience _now_, nor that of the group of people who have
common experiences and common interests.  There is nothing "icky" about the
fact of life that YOU and I have a hell of a lot in common (despite our
differences) merely because of the color of our skin; I doubt that even you
would deny that, although you might argue that it is a function of the
period in history in which we are living -- i.e. a period in which AA's
make up 1-2% of the US, in which major Asian immigration did not begin
until the '60s when discriminatory immigration laws were repealed, in which
we are the first major wave of Asian ethnics to enter college, in which the
US has gone through a civil rights revolution, etc., etc., etc.

But those are the facts, and you and I (and Arthur Hu and Dwight Joe and
Judy Tseng, etc.) are bound together by forces that we do not necessarily
like or want.  Frankly, I don't like the fact that you and I face an equal
chance of: being beaten to death because of our skin color, being denied a
job or promotion due to preconceptions of "lack of leadership potential"
(i.e. not being white), being denied political representation because of an
utter lack of organization, being denied entry to certain colleges because
of "over-representation", etc., etc., etc.

Yes, the last (college entrance) is largely gone now, but you and I are
roughly the same age -- the year I applied to college, Harvard, Princeton,
Yale and Stanford had _explicit_ policies which were aimed at limiting
Asian-American enrollment.  Yes, it's true that life will continue without
going to Harvard, but those schools are the corridors to power in the US --
does the fact that George Bush and Bill Clinton both graduated from Yale
strike you as a weird coincidence?  Not.  Is this an Asian-American issue?
Yes, because one less Asian-American in Yale may mean one less
Asian-American senator or president.  And if you believe that race is not a
real factor in political representation, then why don't we make all the
senators Asian-American, since they can represent the needs and interests
of white and black Americans just as well as the 97+ white males Senators
we have now?

   Using this example, this group/organization of Asian Americans don't act 
   because they all happen to look the same; they act and have grouped
   because they, the members of this group, all have a singular goal to fight
   Asian American discrimination...in the media...in law...in <whatever>.  Now,
   that's more like it--this group  has a clearly defined purpose for existing.  
Fine.  My contention is that we are still in the stages of figuring out
that we _do_ have common interests, and trying to figure out what those
interests are.  That's why we haven't gotten our act together.  I think we
will within the next decade or so, just as I think that eventually, there
won't be as much of a need for such a group, although I can't say for sure
how far in the future that will be -- it could be within our lifetime, or
it could be longer.

Race _is_ a social construct, but social constructs are REAL, Lui.
Political beliefs and economic status and philosophical status and social
status and regional bases are also REAL, and not necesssarily any less
WRONG or EVIL or BIASED or DIRTY.

   >In a democracy, even groups which are a minority can effect change, if they
   >act as a group.  I don't see why you believe that AA's should act
   >collectively in every single aspect of their lives _except_ concerning
   >their race -- race is an issue that affects my life, just as much as (or
   >more than) my political views or my economic status.  Closing my eyes to
   >race in the vain hope that everyone else will do the same is plain
   >stupidity.

   Noted.  It's interesting to see how two people who have more or less
   grown up in isolation from other Asian Americans, come to such divergent
   views. 
   <deleted: Lui's experiences with alliances beyond race>

As I have stated before, I am not a separatist.

However, my experiences as an AA growing up in the Midwest and in college
in the East Coast and this past year in Japan have taught me that it is
always better to enter an alliance from a position of power than of
weakness.  Alliances are unavoidable -- separatism is just not a realistic
choice in the US, and not a particularly attractive choice, even if it
were.

Given that alliances are unavoidable, I want to enter, negotiate, and
participate in those alliances in the manner which is most advantageous to
me.  I am not looking for a "protector" or a "savior" or a "big brother",
because that kind of alliance heavily favors the other party.

You seem to believe that we as a tiny minority are all inevitably weak and
worthless, and that we need someone to take care of us.  I think that is
the fundamental difference you and me: if I believed that, I would probably
hold the same views that you do.  However, I don't believe that (anymore),
and everything I've learned about the US tells me that you have to take
want you want, and half the battle is merely a matter of self-confidence
and chutzpah.

If you take shit from anyone, they will lose respect for you.  If you bash
them back, they will not necessarily like you, but they will respect you
more.  Forming advantageous alliances is not a matter of getting someone to
like you for being a sycophant, but much more dependent upon a matter of
respect, which you _must_ feel for yourself and which you _must_ radiate.
If you don't, you lose as soon as you show at the table asking for help.

   I noted your reply to my article about the Judy Tseng tirade
   against me.  I had asked the question, who spoke up after her article?  It
   wasn't that I needed it, but I was bitterly disappointed how easy it is
   for people of the same color/ethnicity to look the other way--in this case,
   another Asian American bashing another because one thought that the other
   wasn't "Asian" enough and too "American" (ie. White).  It's so easy to
   bash and flame against people who don't look like you...that's how racism
   feeds itself, a vicious cycle.

This is ridiculous Lui -- I'm sure that Judy looks a lot more like you than
most Americans.  The fact of the matter is that you have never spoken up in
public, in my recollection, when a "white" poster attacked an Asian poster
or spouted racist or ignorant nonsense, which is NOT an unusual occurence
in s.c.a.a.  Explain why?  Because race is so important to you, that you do
not want to be seen as "defending" someone just because they are the same
color as you.  Because race is more important to you than ideas, and you
want to emphasize the fact that not all Asians stick together, even when
you see something that you do not like.  Because you believe so _deeply_ in
the eradication of racial differentiation that you will ignore an
injustice, just because the target of that injustice was Asian.

If I am off target, maybe you can explain why you've never publically
chastised or criticized anything from anyone white.  Quite frankly, I was a
little bit disgusted with the "chopped up eyes" comment, but for the most
part, I agreed with the gist of what Judy said.

   No, I'm sorry but race is already too important.  I want to be less important
   because it is.  And I certainly do not agree with Hoyt Sze in saying that it
   is a form of suicide to not maintain that Asian American "solidarity".  

I don't think it's suicide, but I think it's in the best interests of most
Asian Americans for certain issues.  Race is too important in some ways,
but the way to achieve respect and some form of equality is not through
ignoring race and disarming yourself in the hope that others will; you've
got to look at race realistically, with the knowledge that others will use
it against you.

In the near term, I am extremely cynical and pessimistic: I have a decent
idea what life is going to be like in the near future from my experiences
from the near past.  In the long term, I am extremely optimistic, because I
know how much better my life is than my parents' were at my age.  Things
will get better, but they won't get better by closing your eyes and hoping
for the best in others -- it will take a lot of hard work and a lot of
fighting.

-Andy
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american