From: ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu)
Subject: Re: Asian-male stereotyping, how?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.015617.17100@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
	[Dwight and Jim having a polite exchange about email addresses,
	 including Dwight admitting fallibility, deleted.]
	[Dwight's explaining his discriminatory writing style deleted.]
>
>For example, if a Chinese-cu moron appears on soc.culture.japan
>and says that "Chinese are inherently non-violent", you can be sure
>that _no_ Chinese-cu Chinese-ge will object to that racist statement.
>Because it is a racist statement, I can only respond in the same manner
>that I use to respond to a Nazi.

Dwight's got a good point here, which also came up during a recent SCAA
party:  people tend to speak up most against stereotypes that are directly
insulting, and seldom speak up against stereotypes that are superficially
complimentary.  Thus, someone like jj is much more likely to flame someone
to a crisp for disparaging white men than he is for disparaging, say, an
Asian-American man.  Or notice that almost all of the most passionate
Dwight-bashers are of Chinese or Korean ancestry, since Dwight's diatribes
are, Dwight's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, actually attacks
on *people* of certain *ancestries* rather than on cultures.  (If you actually
believe that Dwight clearly follows the -cu/-ge distinction that he makes great
pretentions of following, ask him to clarify what he means when he insults
someone for having a Chinese-cu *name*.)

Or take another good example.  Lui posted two articles from Transpacific.
The first one had some self-hating white woman who completely stereotyped
and objectified Asian-American men as ideal boyfriends and husbands.  I
didn't see a single complaint in this group (and I didn't bother to respond
myself).  The second one had some self-hating Asian-American woman who
completely stereotyped and objectified Asian-American men as the greatest
scum of the universe.  This time, all sorts of Asian-American men (myself
included) came popping out of the woodwork to criticize the article.

Or take the model-minority myth.  I see people posting here all the
time who accept that as true.  They are happy to take the stereotype
at it's face value, that we're all smarter and harder-working than
other people, without realizing that the stereotype, by dehumanizing
Asian Americans, carries a dark side, that we're evil, robots taking
over the country, and that we just study all the time and have no social,
management, or leadership skills.

Or take the classic Asian-female-as-most-desired-romantic-object
stereotypes.  So often, I've heard guys saying things like,
"I prefer to date Asian women.  I think they're better looking,
they're nicer, they tend to be more intelligent, yet they place
more emphasis on family.  These values are important to me, too.
Also, I'm more liberated than the typical Asian man, so things work
out well."  And I see Asian-American women gobbling up those lines
like manna from heaven.  It's only the more "militant" (meaning women
who've actually thought about the repercussions) women like Clare or
Judy, that I've heard speak out against such "positive" objectification,
because it is intrinsically dehumanizing, and carries the parallel
dark side of "I prefer to date Asian women.  They sexy and exotic,
they're more quiet and subservient, they'll work hard doing chores
and raising my kids.  That's important to me.  Also, Asian guys are
scum, so even if I slap my Suzy Wong around a bit, she's lucky I
decided to rescue her."

So, does silence intrinsically condone an offensive statement or action?
Am I morally obligated to object to *every* racist remark or act?
And is it possible to capitalize on a "positive" stereotype without
being reduced to a non-human object of the stereotyped set and hence
vulnerable to all the downsides of the stereotype?
	[Dwight's signature deleted.]
						--Alan Hu
----------
I am not Arthur Hu.  I am NOT Arthur Hu.  I AM NOT ARTHUR HU.

I am not a neo-conservative writer for AsianWeek.  I did not go
to MIT.  I do not conduct phone surveys.  I am not married.
I do not believe in Dan Quayle's family values.

Arthur Hu is a fine person.  So am I.  We are not, however, the same person.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.asian.american:11094 ca.politics:10466