From: ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu)
Subject: Re: Asian-American Political Agenda?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.223910.25208@panix.com> sieh@panix.com (Lui Sieh) writes:
	[Wataru hitting Lui's pet peeve, and Lui's penetrating, though
	bristly, response deleted.]
>>
[Wataru writes:]
>>Alan, I do agree that sharing adversity is probably the strongest
>>unifying factor (more than "culture").   
>
>There's a tiny problem with this.  What is "adversity" to you is
>very different to another person like me.  Now what?  These words
>you use and the language used here are so banal that it's really
>meaningless; it's useless.

Oh no, it's the attack of the linguistic deconstructionists!  :-)

			   There is nothing here that can effect
>a real form of unity.  You will never get anyone to say publicly
>that they are against equality or discrimination or racism.  Of
>course everyone can agree on this.  Agreement/consensus does not
>translate into action.  It seldom does.  One needs to be more focused 
>and substantive.  This does not mean, 'We should work together and
>eliminate racism in this country.' "No, really?!"  Well, that's
>what I hear people say.  There's been very little substance to go 
>with the rhetoric.

OK, here's what I expect of people in terms of Asian-American issues:
	1.  Accept Asian Americans as Real Americans (tm), with
		all the rights and responsibilities thereunto
		appertaining.
	2.  Be willing to take the time to judge a person as an
		individual, rather than dismissing him/her as
		just another member of some group.
	3.  There is no number 3.
That's it.  There's plenty more things that I believe in, and
many people may accept the above axioms and derive different
theorems than I do, but as long as we share those axioms, they
are allies of mine.  The problem, as I see it, is that so many
people do not accept these two simple axioms.  That is the lack
of unity that I decry.


>
	[Stuff about Japanese vs Japanese-American ethnicity deleted.]
>
[Wataru writes:]
>>motivating factor for joining/forming Asian American
>>organizations.  Anti-Asian racism was the thing that got me mad
>>enough to want to do "something".  From the practical side, we
>>need the strength of numbers with a unified voice to be heard.
>
>A few fundamental issues arise from this.  
>1)  To what extent will the "end justify the means"?  This appears
>in many forms.  It could mean what priority does the group identity 
>and effort have over the individual identity?
>  a)  What is the end?

For me, the end is a society in which rules 1 and 2, above, are
accepted as moral axioms.

>
>2) What are the means?  This issue deserves its own consideration.
>People may certainly agree on broad goals such as saying racism should
>be eliminated.  The "problem" is that there are some people who feel
>there are certain methods that should be used and that these are the
>right methods to use.  There are others who feel that there are many
>kinds of actions and activities that can be used in accordance to the
>situation.  This question is very divisive.  Getting people to agree
>on the goals is the easy part.  The biggest battle is getting people to
>work together and to cooperate with each other and agree on what steps
>should be taken toward the goals.  I feel that 99.98% percent of the
>problems stem from this issue alone.
>
	[Lui's signature displaying his command of Latin deleted.]

What got me started on this thread was the problem of factional
divisiveness.  I had been harping on the Chinese vs. Korean vs.
Japanese vs. Pilipino vs. etc. issue; we've seen the "Indians
don't count as Oriental Americans" thread a bunch of times; now,
Lui re-raises the Hoyt-Sze-if-you're-not-part-of-MY-solution-you're-
part-of-the-problem issue.

What I'd like to see is unity.  This is a unity that encompasses
Lui's individuality and jj's curmudgeonly-whiteness (:-)) as well
as Wataru's unified voice, Andy Shaw's group power, or even Jim
Pak's Cal-weenie-ravings (;-)).  The unity is that, I believe, we
all share goals 1 and 2.  The only additional burden is to accept
that we *are* unified in our goals, and that all of our approaches
have merit and may, indeed, be necessary parts of attaining our common
goals.  I wrote some stuff on Asian-American activism a while back,
of which I'm appending an excerpt.
----------

I don't demand that everyone go out and hold sit-ins on the freeways
or marches on the Capitol.  There's value to that kind of activism,
but there's also value in toeing the party line and getting appointed
to the Supreme Court.  Or being a good role model.  Or being a successful
professional who can afford a $1000/plate campaign fundraiser.  Or simply
working hard, doing your best, and making lots of friends.  Or, for that
matter, wielding a grenade-launcher and being willing to die for the cause
(the kind of activism that got the Soviets out of Afghanistan).  What is
important is the idea, the beliefs.  Anyone, rich or poor, black, brown,
red, yellow, or white, politically involved or not, who truly believes in the
rightful equality of Asian Americans, is far more of an ally than someone
who mouths the PC party line, while deep-down feeling that Asian Americans
are inferior and/or don't really belong in the US.

This kind of activism is for everyone.  And our future as a nation
depends on it.
						--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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american