From: shaw@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Andy Shaw)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Perceptions, Realities, Perceptions
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:16:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: whopper.SHAW.92Aug13001642
	<1992Aug12.062725.8780@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<my4mh-h.kemnitz@netcom.com>
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass.

In article <my4mh-h.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
   A problem I've always had with the notions of race-based simplification is
   that the notion that all, or even most, Whites are somehow members of a ruling
   elite is manifestly untrue.  

Absolutely correct.  But as you know and stated, almost _all_ of the ruling
elite is white, and entering that elite is practically impossible for a
member of a minority group.

   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.

As usual, a _very_ perceptive post.

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.  That's what a democracy is about.  One way to obtain that
power is to portray oneself as a victim, and to obtain the sympathy of the
majority through the Judeo-Christian/American concept of "fairness".  I
think that has been the primary strategy of the African-American group so
far, and was quite successful in the 60's but certainly seems to be a big
losing strategy in the 90's, when the US is clearly on the decline
economically and everyone is struggling.  At these times, appealing for
sympathy is going to get you nowhere.

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.

Another variation on this is to _become_ part of the majority.  However,
historically, this path has only been taken by immigrants who happen to
have the same skin color as the majority -- i.e. Irish, Italians, Eastern
Europeans, and to an extent, Jews.  Blacks and Hispanics have not succeeded
with this strategy, because it's difficult to become part of a group when
you are easily discernable visually.

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.  And unfortunately,
that is how we are primarily defined: by our visual characteristic.  I have
no illusions of the definition of Asian-Americans as a group: we are
largely (but not completely) defined by our common experience through our
common oppression, not by some indefinable cultural affinity of our
ancestors -- there is a hell of a difference between Japanese, Chinese,
Korean, Vietnamese, etc.  cultures.

However, I think it would be informative to look at the example of Jews: a
group which has difficulty playing the "victim" strategy, and which is not
completely accepted into the majority group, and which nevertheless, has
enough power so that their causes are represented more than sufficiently.
When they need to play the "victim" game, they can play it, but they only
use it for tactical battles, not wars.  When they try to work with and
blend into the majority group, they succeed, but they know that they cannot
depend upon that acceptance -- they have too long of a history of
oppression and rejection to believe otherwise.

I think there are three primary factors which allows such a small minority
like the Jews to obtain their power:

1. Commitment and definition
   Jews know who they are -- they are not completely defined from the
outside.  They have a common cultural background, which AA's do not.  They
have a long, long history of being persecuted, rejected and oppressed,
which gives good motivation for individual members to remain committed to
the group, even if they do not agree with all of the stands of the group.
They generally do not delude themselves into believing that they will be
completely accepted by the majority, and in the end know that they can only
count on their own group.
   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.

2. Money
   Let's face it -- in this world, the amount of power you have is directly
proportional to the amount of money you have.  Jews are captains of
industry, leaders in our economy, and as such, can call their own shots on
a first order, without having to resort to politics, where their minority
status is a disadvantage.
   However, when it comes to politics, money is what drives it.  Jews are
well-represented in Congress and the White House, even if they are not
represented by one of their own, they are represented by the money that
they have access to.

3. Organization
   Money is only as useful as how well it is directed.  Jews are the
epitomy of organization, whereas the much-vaunted economic power of AA's is
useless -- AA's are the epitomy of disorganization.

#2 is probably taken care of.  It's #1 that I think is the biggest hurdle,
and #3 is impossible without #1.  #1 is very difficult, because AA's do not
have the historical lessons of Jews, and as the saying goes "fools learn
from their mistakes, wise men learn from the mistakes of others", and
basically, most of us are fools.  And of course, as I stated before, AA's
do not have a common culture -- at least not to the degree that Jews do.

Certainly, this analogy should not be drawn out too far -- the fact of the
matter is that Jews have a much much better ability to blend into the
majority, which spares them much of the hassles that AA's have.  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.

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).

-Andy