From: tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Asian-American/African-American Relationships
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:41:18 GMT
Organization: Raoul Duke School of Pharmacology and Journalism

In article <1992Jul20.213333.3225@u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.201748.15765@mumbo.apple.com> tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.145638.10605@u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul20.072923.20498@mumbo.apple.com> tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse) writes:
>>>>  I would think that a person who claims to be fair in his
>>>>social and professional dealings but is racially discriminating in 
>>>>matters much closer to his heart smacks of the worst sort of hyprocrisy.
>>>	Why?
>>>	In one area, you rule with your head. In the other, you rule with
>>>your heart. Why should the twain meet and why should it be important that
>>>the twain meet everywhere?
>
>>Anyway, you seem to want to draw a distinction better matters of 
>>logic and matters of emotion and claim that the requirement of 
>>racial impartiality applies to the former but not the latter.  But
>>is there such a clear line between the "head" and the "heart"?  
>>No.  We are humans, not Vulcans; emotions color everything we do.  
>
>	Exactly.  
>
>>We are also not beasts, and logic and rationality are parts of how
>>we make decisions.
>
>	True.
>
>	But not all parts of our lives can be ruled by emotions nor can
>all parts of our lives be ruled by rationality.
>
>	You are supposing that everything CAN be ruled by rationality,
>down to the visceral, gut-level reactions of what we like and what we
>don't like.

Huh?  What we have here is a failure to communicate.  :-)  

In fact, I said (in part of the material you quoted and agreed with):
"We are humans, not Vulcans; emotions color everything we do."
Obviously I do *not* think that "everything CAN be ruled by
rationality", as you claimed.

Let me just recap the action here.

In <1992Jul20.072923.20498@mumbo.apple.com>, I wrote:
#I would think that a person who claims to be fair in his
#social and professional dealings but is racially discriminating in
#matters much closer to his heart smacks of the worst sort of hyprocrisy.

To which you replied in <1992Jul20.145638.10605@u.washington.edu>:
#     In one area, you rule with your head. In the other, you rule with
#your heart. Why should the twain meet and why should it be important that
#the twain meet everywhere?

[BTW, I have a literary/historical question on the word "twain".  I 
remember a line from I don't know where that goes something like:
"The east is east, the west is west, and ne'er the twain shall meet."
I had thought that quote came from Hardy's "Convergence of The Twain",
but it didn't.  Does the line sound familiar to anyone?  Anyone has
a reference for it?]

I countered your claim of irreconcilable difference in 
<1992Jul20.201748.15765@mumbo.apple.com> with the question:
#But is there such a clear line between the "head" and the "heart"?

Now apparently you finally agree with my claim that there isn't such 
a difference, that the two realms are comparable, when you said in 
<1992Jul20.213333.3225@u.washington.edu>:
#       But not all parts of our lives can be ruled by emotions nor can
#all parts of our lives be ruled by rationality.

>>There is a mix of emotion and logic in our
>>professional decisions, and there is also a mix of emotion and logic
>>in how we choose a mate.  It's hypocrisy to preach nondiscrimination
>>in one and discrimination in the other.
>	What? Preach for others? Or for one's self?

Either.  It's hypocritical to preach (and hopefully practice) racial
equality in one place and racial discrimination in another.  Oh, or
am I using the word "hypocritical" incorrectly?  How about "highly
contradictory"?  Or "stinks of situational ethics"?

>	And are you dealing with individuals' attitudes or preferences or
>their actions and behaviors? Those you CAN delineate quite sharply, and it
>makes a considerable amount of difference.

Both.  So many people (both on the net and in real life) would scream
racism at "I would only choose my co-workers among <ethnic>", so few
would at "I would only choose my mate among <ethnic>".  

I posed this question in my last post.  I really am interested in 
an answer, from *anybody*.  Would "X can't be my best friend, because
he's an <ethnic>" be a racist statement?"

-- 
Gary Tse, tse@Apple.COM			``Out of a misty dream
(408) 862-5452			Our path emerges for a while, then closes
						Within a dream.'' -- E. Dowson