From: jpak@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Pak)
Subject: Racial preferences in choosing your mate (was Re: Asian-American/African-American Relationships)
Reply-To: jpak@manute.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Austin, Tx.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:58:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.184118.951@mumbo.apple.com> tse@loonybin.apple.com (Gary Tse) writes:
>Huh?  What we have here is a failure to communicate.  :-)  

I'm not surprised.  I was getting lost trying to keep up with this often-
confusing discussion between the two of you.  (Don't worry Roger, it's just
my weenie brain short-circuiting again.  :-) )

>Let me just recap the action here.

OK, please do, because I was getting confused.

>In <1992Jul20.072923.20498@mumbo.apple.com>, I [Gary] 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.

Well, to get semantical here, I think that person suffers from a double-
standard rather than hypocrisy.  S/he wouldn't be a hypocrite in my book
unless s/he were very disapproving of every kind of racist behavior *in
others*, while continuing to be this way themselves.  But as for your
general point, I agree with you.

>I countered your [Roger's] 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"?

I don't think so.  Like both of you said, emotion and logic color all parts
of our lives and all of our decisions, as much as we try to deny it doesn't.

>>>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"?

A simple "double-standards" here will do for me.  I think you're making
your point loud and clear, at least to me.  I also think you're right.
And yet the funny thing is that so many people DO JUST THAT (i.e. make
racial preference a very small, if any, factor in how they choose to hire
someone, or at least acknowledge that it's terrible to do so, and yet make
race a very LARGE factor in their choice of a mate).  I think part of what
makes it more acceptable in our minds is the fact that so many others act
this way.  I think if you really think about it and are perfectly honest
with yourself, you have to accept that it *is* a form of racial discrimina-
tion to have this double-standard.  Maybe not the worst form of it, but *a*
form.  But then again, it's such a common way of thinking and acting that
people accept it and even try to rationalize it away.  The whole thread
about preferring to adopt babies of same color as yourself (or to even have
a "hierarchy" in the first place) is the exact same thing.  And yet so many
people feel this way, including myself.

If I can inject this point into your debate with Roger, perhaps the defining
line for making racial "preference" (or discrimination, depending on how you
look at it) acceptable or not acceptable is not the concept of "head vs heart"
or "rationality vs gut-level preferences," but rather how it may affect
bringing others into your family.  I really think the concept of bringing
somebody into your family is the key line in which race REALLY starts to
color people's decisons.  Marriage (or in this case, the possibility of a
serious relationship that MIGHT lead to marriage) and adoption both fit into
this.  Family is intimate.  Family is almost sacred to many people.  Lots of
people think inside that they can have friends or acquaintances of any race,
and *maybe* they can have a goof-around, non-serious dating relationship with
someone of any race, but if it gets even slightly serious or you're even
vaguely considering marriage, then that person had better be of X race (i.e.
your own), or increasingly, X or Y race (Y race if you can't find someone of
X race), but definitely *NOT* someone of Z, V, or W race!!

>>   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>".  

Because the latter is such an intimate thing, and it implies membership into
your family.  And if that person is of the "wrong" race, that's a big no-no.
BTW, before all the people in Asian-White relationships start patting them-
selves on the back for being so "unracist," quite often, at least from the
Asian side, white people are not considered of "wrong" race.  That is, there's
often not a big issue from friends and peers over an Asian/White relationship
or marriage.  Hell, sometimes it's not even a big issue with the parents.
NOTE:  I'm not saying it's NEVER a big issue because I know it sometimes is,
particularly from parents in the more "traditional" Asian families.  But it
still isn't even close to the stir that an Asian/Black or (this one really
depends) Asian/Hispanic relationship will often cause.  A lot of AAs know
exactly what I'm talking about.  (Rob, take note.)

And so, there's often yet another factor.  Basically, it can be paraphrased
as a parent telling his/her child, "If it were up to me and we were living
in a perfect society, I'd have no objection if you dated anybody of any race.
But we don't, so FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, wouldn't it be better for you to save the
10 million extra hassles from the rest of the world and find someone of your
own race?"  Or in many Asian families, "...your own race or else a white
person?"

>I posed this question in my last post.  I really am interested in 
>an answer, from *anybody*.

Hey, that's what I'm here for, Gary.  :-)  I won't duck this.

>Would "X can't be my best friend, because
>he's an <ethnic>" be a racist statement?"

Sure sounds like it to me.  And yeah, if you then switch "best friend" to
"spouse" or "SO," a lot of people don't want to feel that's racist.  But if
you think about it, you can't get around the double-standard.  And it's not
an issue of "gut-level vs rationality," because you'd then have to assume
that people choose their friends on the basis of rationality while at the
same time choosing their mate on the basis of "gut-level preferences."  In
reality, I don't think it works that way.  Many, many people can be (and in
fact *are*) VERY rational and practical in their choice of a mate.  Even
moreso than in their choice of friends.

You know, Gary, for a moment there I thought your stance on this was incon-
sistent with your other views on things.  But now that I think about it,
they're really not.  You really are an idealist, to the core.  In a way, I
really admire that, even though I usually can't agree with it.

And lest I come off as sounding pure or something, I have a *definite* racial
preference when it comes to an SO.  I really don't have one for a best friend
or a co-worker.  And it has nothing to do with "gut-level vs. rational."  And
it sure sounds like a double-standard to me.

Jim