From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: Racial Harassment at Cal-Are we unclear on concept here?
Keywords: racism
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:43:44 GMT

In article <1jnup7$s65@agate.berkeley.edu> jctwu@soda.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey
Twu) writes:
>Umm... I think we're missing the point here.  There is one minor, but
>essential nuance you're missing.  When those two balcony dwellers
>screamed out, "Look at that Asian girl!" they most probably construed
>that being "Asian" is part of belong to a "race."  Although your

No.  I see no evidence to indicate that they thought "Asian" to be
a racial term.

>dictionary definition might be correct, many still clump all Asians
>together, on a _race_ basis.

This of course does not indicate that those individuals thought "Asian"
to be a racial term.  Yes.  There are people who clump all Asians

         Russians, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Turks, etc.

into a single race.  I don't do such a thing, but many people on
this newsgroup have done so.  The worst offenders are C.-cu people.
When it suits them they consider C.-ge to be a single race; when
it suits them, they consider all Asians to be a single race.

>And that, what is _meant_ by the offenders--rather than the literal
>interpretations--is key to the incident.

I'll let the "offenders" tell me what they mean.  I am not like a C.-cu
DIK.  I and many Americans-cu do not say, "I don't like what you say.
Therefore, you are racist."

That is precisely what Mr. Twu and C.-cu DIKS like to say.  Read over what
Mr. Twu writes:

   >And that, what is _meant_ by the offenders--rather than the literal
   >interpretations--is key to the incident.

Let's translate this to the language of Americans-cu.  "I don't like what you
say, and despite the non-racist assertion that you have made, I think you 
are a racist."  We can find many examples of this sort of thinking among
C.-cu DIKs.

>Using your analogy, one could say, "Look at that black man!"  Taking this

No.  The proper analogy in this case is _not_ the use of the word
"black"; that word, unlike Asian, is not a geographical term.  It makes 
explicit use of a genetic indicator.  The proper analogy is

              Look at that African man!

>literally, well, somebody's making a comment as to a person's skin
>color.  But, if we look deeper, into what that somebody is thinking,
>chances are we'll probably find some prejudice toward African-Americans.

Huh?  Yeah.  May be to a C.-cu DIK.

I fail to see how the previous sentence is racist.  Egyptians are also
African.  So, what?

>Again, it is simply geographically based (not nationality-based), and the
>speaker is not a lexicographer who knows that racism is associated
>specifically with a country of origin, but regardless:  This is racist.

Let's translate this to the language of Americans-cu.  "I don't like what you
say, and despite the non-racist assertion that you have made, I think you 
are a racist."  We can find many examples of this sort of thinking among
C.-cu DIKs.

This is so incredibly asinine.  How would Mr. Twu know whether the
"offenders" were versed in geography or not?  Just look at all the damn
assumptions that Mr. Twu has to make in order to draw his conclusion of
"racism".

_Think_ about this.  Suppose that this country, the USA, were controlled
by C.-cu DIKs!  Just imagine a typical day.  You, the reader, says something
that you have carefully worded in order to avoid being thrown in prison
by the thought police because those words might be suggestive of something
unsavory to them.  But wait!!  There's no way out.  Why?  Because even
if you carefully word something to be politically correct, the thought
police (a.k.a. C.-cu DIKs!) will ignore the literal meaing of your words.  What
they will do is guess what you "_really_ _intended_" to say, _NOT_ what
you actually said.  Then, they persecute you on the basis of what you 
_might_ have said, _not_ what you actually said.

I have never heard of this kind of justice in my life.  Wait!  I have.
Not in this country, the USA.  But in countries where C.-cu DIKs predominate.
In those countries (that exist today), you can be thrown in jail for
no apparent reason.  In fact, Time magazine (during the second
week of January) reports that in one such country, there is an "Internal
Security Act" which permits the police to imprison you for what they think
you _might_ be thinking.

Is that the kind of world in which _we_ want to live?

The important thing is to note that Mr. Twu provides insight into the
kind of thinking that goes on in his cultural group.  We should all
appropriately adjust our opinion of that cultural group.

------------------------------------------------------------------+------------
Jinsei no imi wa nan desu ka.                Sister, can you      |   \|  |`
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.           spare a coin?        |    | -+-
                                                                  |   /| / \
Copyright 1992, 1993    Disclaimer:  1 + 1 = 3                    |
------------------------------------------------------------------+------------