From: sieh@panix.com (Lui Sieh)
Subject: Re: What is Asian ?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:02:46 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Nov18.020033.21003@tamsun.tamu.edu> achin@math.tamu.edu 
(Andrew Chin) writes:
>In article 11599@panix.com, sieh@panix.com (Lui Sieh) writes:
>>There are many reasons for socializing or organizing.  Hoyt Sze's
>>recent diatribe in Asian Week against apolitical Asian American
>>organizations misses the point (not surprising) in why people associate.
>>There are cultural and economic reasons as well as political ones.  They
>>are just as "legitimate".  And these organizations serve as useful a purpose 
>>as political organizations.
>
>But frequently the act of deciding to be apolitical has political 
>ramifications.

Heh, :-).  Yes, you're right.  An action has a consequence to it and I am
in complete agreement here with you.  In a world in which politics makes
the world go round and round, one can not make some sort of decision or
commit an act without creating political ramifications.

Let me also extrapolate further (because I'm familiar with your views) that
choosing to be apolitical has a negative political impact on the greater
political picture (ie. Asian American empowerment).  I also am inclined to
accept this idea.

However, I would argue that there is a social and political benefit in having
and maintaining Asian American organizations that are traditionally apolitical;
they would be mostly your social and cultural organizations.  They serve a
different purpose but often times they help augment the activities that
overt political organizations engage.  For one, social and cultural orgs have
usually been larger than political organizations simply because there are
greater opportunities for people to have similar interests.  Political or
activist style organizations are often beset by infighting because people's
politics vary so much and no one can really agree on anything.  Social and
cultural organizations also help reach across many people because the "message"
(not sure what the right word here is) is less offensive and more neutral.
People don't make friends talking politics, they make enemies that way.  Also,
these organizations may even be more representative than political/activist
type orgs are because of their larger size.  In the end, politically, they
may have more effect.

>For example, consider Alpha Chi at the University of Texas at Austin.  When
>we were trying to organize AA representation at a function which had been
>co-sponsored by Alpha Chi and eight other Asian and Asian-American student
>organizations, we had the support of the other eight groups, but Alpha Chi
>attempted to veto our right to be at the function, since it would risk their
>involvement in a political activity.
>
>Meanwhile, social organizations like Alpha Chi continue to be recognized
>by the university administration as the *only* legitimate voice of the AA
>community, because AA students, just like all other American students,
>are generally more interested in partying than politicking; hence the
>party clubs tend to be much bigger than the issue-oriented groups.  Fine.  
>But when they're asked by the administration for input on race issues, 
>they should pass the responsibility on to interested people, rather than
>taking the call, dropping the ball and letting AAs continue to go 
>unrepresented.

Off-hand, I would say that there was a political failure by key people who
were invovled in this endeavor.  Being politically savvy is something one
learns and it's a skill that is not to be trivialized.  In any case, if
Alpha Chi being the largest organization is more representative than a
political organization then I agree that they should be the main party to
speak to.  I would never let a minority party speak for the majority party.
Yes, while the purpose of the organizations are different (ie. one social the
other political), this is not a sufficient reason to minimize their influence.
Instead of trying to usurp their role or responsibility, the other eight or
so organizations should have tried to incorporate the mass of their members
with yours.  And one needed do that physically.  While they maybe Alpha Chi
members, they are still individuals (I hope) that can be persuaded, cojoled,
coerced etc to act in tandem with other organizations.

>We have the same situation here at Texas A&M with a party club called the 
>Asian-American Association. A name like that puts a huge damper on any 
>attempts by AA leaders to organize.  

There is something called cooperation.  If you have the ideas but not the
people then it is up to you (right, *you*) to find a way bring them toward
you.  If someone or something say Alpha Chi is in the way, then you have
to try and work with Alpha Chi to come to some compromise.  That's how things
work.

>It also establishes the club as something it's not:  
>the official voice of AA students.  

Traditionally, mass/majority have meant "representative".  It has also meant
"empowerment".  Well, it seems to me that you want that but don't have that
and you're bemoaning it.  You want the power Alpha Chi has courtesy of the
sheer number of members for "real Asian American groups".  As I have said
time and again, people organize and associate because of similarities, shared
experiences, shared ideas, philosophy, interest etc.  It's up to you to craft
your message in such a way that they can't ignore what you're saying and that
they become interested.  If they can't relate to what you're saying then your
message is wrong, even if it may not be.  That's life...and it's a constant
struggle.  Life is not easy and getting what one wants isn't easy either.  Nor
should it be, IMO.

>It's no wonder AAs have been completely disenfranchised from the
>multiculturalism debate again this year.  I.e., there 
>is for the first time a serious proposal for a required course on the American
>minority experience beginning in 1993-94.  The students involved in the 
>drafting of the proposal were white, African-American and Hispanic.  The AAA 
>had been contacted but had failed to respond.

But don't stop there.  What about the other 8 Asian American organizations?
What happened to them?  Did they speak up?  Did they try to get involved?  Did
the students drafting this proposal stop seeking after contacting AAA?  From
what it sounds like, yes, this is a failure and the next few steps is to find
out why it happened and then find solutions so that this communication break
down doesn't happen again.

>Lead, follow, or get out of the way.  Unfortunately on most campuses,
>AA party clubs are in the way, and they act like they own the road.  In fact, 
>they're probably the single biggest obstacle to AA student activism.

These social/cultural clubs are different.  But because they aren't with
you do you really feel that they are against you?  Personally, I find that
the answer to this is, "yes".  Well, that's false.  The reason why they are
not "with you" is because you haven't convinced the people that your interest
is also their interest.  In a world of "diversity", people must tolerate and
accept that no one is going to be exactly the same.  

-- 
//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@panix.com 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american