From: sieh@quads.uchicago.edu (Xue)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Perceptions, Realities, Perceptions
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:38:59 GMT
Reply-To: sieh@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <SHAW.92Aug13001642@whopper.lcs.mit.edu> shaw@whopper.lcs.mit.edu 
(Andy Shaw) writes:
>In article <my4mh-h.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) 
>writes:
>   But overcoming the evidence of one's own eyes is quite difficult,
>   and addressing the seeming contradiction between what academics say about
>   the ongoing effects of anti-AA racism and what poor or working class Whites
>   see around them is a challenge which seems to have been largely ignored by
>   AA activists, except to denounce such notions as "perpetuations of the 
>   model minority myth".  But however politically inconvenient such 
>   observations are, they do exist and ignoring them weakens the political 
>   impact of AA causes before poorer people, not only poor whites but other 
>   generally poorer minority groups as well.
>
>I think the the implicit assumption in your post (and in most of Lui's) is
>that power can only be obtained in the US through the grace of the majority
>group in power.  

There are different levels of "power".  Your article detailing the difference
of power and rights was excellent.

I believe that the individual rights that one enjoys in this country is a
source of power.  It is for me the foundation for any form of power.  It is
from this that "group power" is derived because without first, "individual
power", there can not be a "group power".  Furthermore, one of the basic
contention between you and me, is that your basic group is the "Asian American
community" in which color/ethnicity defines how the group is to defined.  I
object to this because 1) that is how racism and bigotry lives in today's
society and 2) there are more important factors that matter in determining
how the group should be defined (ie. social, economic, philosophical, 
political, geographical etc.).  Having said this, I do agree that there does
exist common problems confronting Asian Americans.

>That's what a democracy is about.  

Democracy is more than just the simple relationship between the majority
and the minority.  In the government, as a for instance, a person is powerful
because he is able to marshall together people with disparate ideas, goals
and work *together* toward a goal.  In Congress, it is possible for junior
Congressmen to effect change.  Yes, they would need the help of senior members
such as the Committee Chairman or the Speaker.  But, the key is in how they
get various people together.  Political power works this way.  This model is
also a good one for society to adopt.  Anger, hatred, violence may get some
"concessions" but the ill-will generated from such tactics will eventually
backfire.  People will be more open to change if they aren't made to feel
like the enemy or disliked.  It's common sense.  For example, let us take
the outburst from Judy Tseng against me.  Let us assume that she was right
for the most part and I was wrong.  After what she said, can you think of 
a compelling reason for me to want to change my mind and behavior?  Is there
any reason what-so-ever for me to embrace her views and "ideology"?  If I
am continously harangued, why should I change and "be more Asian American"?
[Can I ask any more rhetorical questions in a row? :-)]

>In the long run, playing the "victim" game is a losing strategy, because it
>doesn't empower you from within, it only draws its power from others who
>have the power.  It's depending on the kindness of strangers for your own
>future, and also a demoralizing way to live your life and to define
>yourself.

I agree.

>Another variation on this is to _become_ part of the majority.  

The basis for thinking in these terms and defining the race paradigm as
such is that American society has two groups of people: "Whites" and "Us"
(where "us" is your favorite <ethnic> American).  This isn't really the
problem.  The problem lies what follows from this assumption.  That being
people of these two groups are separate in every aspect--but starting with
skin color.  And this is how racism lives.  It feeds on people's apparent
nature to discriminate, judge, based on the first thing they see--skin color.
This is an impulse that needs to be dampened or made impotent.

>I think that to an extent, Asian-Americans have the same problem as Blacks
>and Hispanics: we do not have the option of joining the majority as a full
>member, simply because we will be discernable visually.  

I think I detect an inconsistency. I understand your position that Asian 
Americans should forge a strong separate identity in which the solidarity of
Asian Americans can be more effective in combatting the repression of "Whites",
the Majority [tm].  In the above it seems that if Asian Americans were not
so visually discernable, it would be okay to "join" the majority because it
would happen naturally?

>And unfortunately,
>that is how we are primarily defined: by our visual characteristic. 

Agreed.  And I think you and I are very clear on our respective positions
based on our last exchange a few months ago.

>   Their most recent rejection was by the African-American group, with whom
>they had an alliance in the 60's.  That's why I'm skeptical of the worth of
>alliances, except for short-term goals.

Alliances last as long as there is a reason to maintain one.  It isn't that
alliances aren't useful; alliances are useful as long as there is a common
goal that each group works toward.  Race is a very poor basis for any
meaningful or long lasting relationship.  Furthermore, political alliances
are by nature very fluid.  It's a part of politics.

>2. Money
>   However, when it comes to politics, money is what drives it.  

And politicians can get money only from those groups that support his
views and goals.  That is where political money comes from.  No reason
why a "non-majority" politician can't or shouldn't get money from "Majority"
[tm] groups and people.

AS a side note, it's so ironic to note the coming elections in NYC.  NYC
has just be redrawn with the result of one of the biggest racial gerrymandering
ever.  On one level, gerrymandering is not "approved" but racial gerrymandering
is okay.  The worst is that in one of the districts, drawn so that there be
a Hispanic majority, the likelihood of a Hispanic candidate winning the House
seat is practically zero.  The irony is rather acute.

>But
>clearly, AA's have a much better opportunity to blend in than
>African-Americans do for various reasons.  I wholeheartedly support this,
>but only on "our" terms -- working with the group in power is unavoidable,
>and separatism is, in the end, detrimental to all the groups in question.

Hmm.  A very clear statement...

>However, I do _not_ support blending in to the degree where we offer our
>group as a weapon to white racists against other minority groups (Arthur
>Hu), to the point of self-hatred (Dwight Joe), or the the point where we
>delude ourselves into believing that the majority will look after our
>interests if only we trust them (Lui Sieh).

Here's the origin of that statement.  Well, I already answered it.

//Twinkie Chinkie
aka



-- 
//Lui Sieh
Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum postero.  
Horace, Odes, I.xi.7;	<-- "Why post to USENET?" -Brian O.  Indeed.
What about my opinions? ==>> /dev/null	or  sieh@midway.uchicago.edu