Is Anger Constructive for Activism?

[kitty]

It's nice that you feel like you can feel that way towards whites. I myself take a much more activistic approach -- I believe that while people are inherently good, nothing will bring the divide between whites and minorities closer together unless we give them shit about when they are taking things for granted or even actively oppressing others.

I'm not going to roll over and say "hey, racial profiling after 9/11, good call, white people! At least we're all united in how much we hate Arabs" as so many whites and other minorities did. Instead, you're going to have to cultivate some anger (not hate) in order to improvie things. This world only works by the amount you can annoy and get into people's faces. I'm not about to forgive and forget about oppression and racism when it's still happening each and every day.

[Tao]

I'm not going to roll over and say "hey, racial profiling after 9/11, good call, white people! At least we're all united in how much we hate Arabs" as so many whites and other minorities did.
hehe, good point

[hapakristina]

It's nice that you feel like you can feel that way towards whites. I myself take a much more activistic approach -- I believe that while people are inherently good, nothing will bring the divide between whites and minorities closer together unless we give them shit about when they are taking things for granted or even actively oppressing others.

I'm not going to roll over and say "hey, racial profiling after 9/11, good call, white people! At least we're all united in how much we hate Arabs" as so many whites and other minorities did. Instead, you're going to have to cultivate some anger (not hate) in order to improvie things. This world only works by the amount you can annoy and get into people's faces. I'm not about to forgive and forget about oppression and racism when it's still happening each and every day.
oh, i'm definitely not saying that you should "roll over" and just sit back and hope that things happen. i hope that my post didn't imply that either. however, i don't think the "anger approach" does anything either. getting up in people's faces doesn't do anything. when people get up in your face, are you more likely to sit back and listen and try to understand their point or get on the defensive? most people would jump on the defensive.

also, who are you getting angry at exactly? do you get up in white people's faces trying to make them see? i'm not sure how you actively go about doing this. my point is that i treat everyone similarly until they prove to me that they're deserving of otherwise.. as an individual. i don't hold what others have done against anyone, which is something that i think many people have a tendency to do towards racial groups.

i'm not trying to come off as arrogant to say that i'm better because i treat people this way. however, what i will say is that predispositions towards any group of people of race and getting angry with people will do nothing to bring that gap of superiority and inferiority closer. it certainly won't help cease this perpetual cycle of racism in this country.

[kitty]

A&F only pulled the shirts after people got in their faces. Vincent Chin's murderers only got a retrial after people got in the faces of the judge who handed down the original sentence. Hasbro sued Chang over ghettopoly only after *everyone* got in *everyone's* faces...

In all those cases, think how much worse things coulda been if we'd left everything originally alone.

[hapakristina]

oh man.. not the infamous A&F shirts. and shaq "apologized" to yao ming after he made offensive comments. does that mean he now "gets it" and "understands" where asians are coming from? of course not. he did it because he had no choice to do it to get the asian activists groups off his nuts. i don't really think he learned anything out of it and the fact that his mouth is still getting him in trouble proves that.

also, as i said.. i was asking you specifically how. you've given examples of events in the media. i'm talking about everyday life with things that we control within our everyday life.

[ChinaLama]

I think if you face oppression, you SHOULD take action. Otherwise, when you get ppl smiling and being happy when people call them names, what you end up w/ is someone like Michelle Malkin.

[achtungbaby]

This is going to go on forever, frankly, because hapakristina very little knowledge or experience with the issues we happen to be debating. I think it's good if these discussions force her to examine her perspectives -- and vice versa. But seriously, some of these things are ridiculously easy to educate yourself on. Go Google, do some research to support your feelings -- anything but simply throw stones at ideas. Any 16-year-old can throw a cog in a discussion by asking, "But why? Why?...Why?" in response to ideas.

HK, with your posts, it's like, I don't know where to begin to refute. I disagree with some of the things you're saying before you even finish a sentence.

It's like this: one of Kasie's law school friends was describing the process for preparing for the bar and said it was "important to have your legos in the right place." Because you may have the right pieces and might even build some basic structures on those pieces, but if they're not fundamentally sound or based on flimsy tenets, then you'll fail the bar.

[hapakristina]

okay then, achtung.. you just proved to me exactly what i had talked about in my e-mail about these boards and what i feel strongly about in the first place.

forget about it. i'm just naive, ignorant, and "will never know, because i'm not asian." i don't need everyone to agree with me, but i am quite tired of feeling belittled because i think differently and because i am "too immature" and "know nothing."

it's been fun people. laters.

[ChinaLama]

well, i agree JUST screaming angrily doesn't solve anything; that's why a scream has to be accompanied by a punch. But if there's absolutely no implied punch, then being nice isn't gonna work. And sometimes, people DO have to get in other's faces, especially on big issues. Maybe not in every day interaction most of the time. But if there wasn't outrage, then there wouldn't be mobilization. If people weren't outraged by Japanese American internment or by Vincent Chin's murder, they wouldn't have even begun the process of seeking justice.

[achtungbaby]

Here, let's take for example, HK's theory that getting your panties in a bunch won't solve anything. Sounds reasonable. Sounds palatable, right? Simply getting angry and frustrated won't to anything substantive or productive.

Right?

And sure, this idea might be good for folks who have no knowledge of history beyond the past five years or something, certainly no knowledge of the specifics of Asian activism and quite possibly, any knowledge of actually taking an advocacy approach to effectively change something.

But this goes back to my earlier point about Googling or getting some easy info that might give you pause before espousing something that seems correct: reality is often very different from how others would like you to perceive it to be.

Case in point: using anger as a tool for change. While getting "angry" is often disdained by conservatives who can't understand why others get pissed off about social injustice, and will bemoan about the short-sightedness of "anger politics" -- you can be sure they too will get theri panties in a bunch when something they care about happens. Like, hey, let's get angry enough to launch a preemptive strike on a country. But I digress (again).

The point is, recognize first that just because you don't immediately get angry about something doesn't make it illegitimate, and second, that NOTHING has ever been truly accomplished to change things without a combination of a number of tools, anger being one of them.

kittygirl's point was this: when coming to the negotiating table over just about anything, it's naive to assume the other side will act in your best interests.

[achtungbaby]

But if there's absolutely no implied punch, then being nice isn't gonna work.This is a different sort of naivete on the part of a lot of activists, I think, that if they just get angry and kick and scream, people will do what you want them to.

You've got to be somewhat realistic. You have to compel people to listen.

[BeTheReds]

forget about it. i'm just naive, ignorant, and "will never know, because i'm not asian." i don't need everyone to agree with me, but i am quite tired of feeling belittled because i think differently and because i am "too immature" and "know nothing."



hapakristina, that isn't what he was implying at all. He was saying that it might be better to familiarize yourself with the issues you are discussing.

[kitty]

kittygirl's point was this: when coming to the negotiating table over just about anything, it's naive to assume the other side will act in your best interests.

Yeah, I was basically saying what you said -- that activists have used "anger" (or really just aggressiveness... you don't have to be angry to get into someone's face and be proactive) to get things accomplished. No, maybe Shaq didn't understand why his comments were wrong, but now he understand that it *was* wrong...

As far as in one's personal life... it's the same as with these larger issues. You need to confront racism when you're faced with it. Like I've said in this thread, it's not about taking a flamethrower a la Grand Theft Auto III to a bunch of Caucasians, but it's about arming yourself with the knowledge and assertiveness to protect your interests -- racism is never acceptable, and that means not "rolling over and taking it" for the sake of a happy happy neverland where discrimination doesn't exist.

[hapakristina]

it's about arming yourself with the knowledge and assertiveness to protect your interests -- racism is never acceptable, and that means not "rolling over and taking it" for the sake of a happy happy neverland where discrimination doesn't exist.

agreed. but obviously my interests differ from many here. and who ever said that we're in some happy happy neverland where discrimination doesn't exist? i know i never said that and i've also never stated that people should just roll over and take it. so i'm not sure where those ideas are coming from because no one has ever said that around here.

some of you seem keen on what i call "selective reading" or maybe my posts are so long-winded that you miss the points that have explained my position. also, because i feel differently than people here doesn't make me less knowledgable or educationed on this topic. because you guys could throw all the information about how things are to you and it doesn't mean that i'd support the "woe is me" victim role that some people like to take on. i seek to not perpetuate society's fascination with race and rather look at people as people.

if you disagree with me, great. argue against my point. but there's no reason to make me feel like i'm stupid and don't know what the hell i am talking about simply because i have a different way of viewing things. the least some of you could do is show me some respect in that manner. i haven't attacked anyone here on a personal level. i've argued my point against other points and stated my argument and why i believe it. period. it's that simple.

[kitty]

I wasn't trying to make you feel stupid, I was trying to say that you seem to be trying to achieve a "happy happy neverland where discrimination doesn't exist"... which won't happen by simply ignoring racism when it happens.

don't assume I'm not reading what you're saying 'cuz I am. And don't assume everyone thinks you're stupid. Personally, I think this is a great discussion and I hope you keep it up :)

[ChinaLama]

anyways, thread has been split from the original. sorry if the title or the choice for thread start is a bit awkward. :)

[kitty]

no prob... more confusing is when the thread is split halfway through posting :)

[BeTheReds]

This is a different sort of naivete on the part of a lot of activists, I think, that if they just get angry and kick and scream, people will do what you want them to.

You've got to be somewhat realistic. You have to compel people to listen.

Amen!

A lot of activists go for the anger button first. And that's the wrong approach in my opinion.

[>:^|]

I think that being naive is not the same as being stupid. Being naive can come from lack of experience, exposure, education or simply youth. There is a developmental aspect to naivete that has to do with the tendency of young adults to think more concretely and to be unable to acknowledge seemingly contradictory ideas.

(Save this thread for ten years, hapakristina, and come back and see if you still agree with yourself.)

When you become active in working towards racial justice, it becomes clear that the issues are extremely complex. And unfortunately, the complexity seems to get larger and larger. At one point in my life I would have said that I had a good understanding of racial issues in this country. However, I now see that belief to be naive. After having worked in communities of color, I recognize that I had a very simplistic idea of the primacy of race in the United States.

Yellowworld is pretty clear on what it's about, "the cultivation of a social and political asian consciousness." And I'd hazard the guess that many people who flock to yellowworld come because of this. So when posters lack this consciousness, it's only natural that others might attempt to enlighten them. If people didn't expect this, I might say that they are naive. Or that they knew but they wanted to engage in this manner. Much in the same way that I feel that the founder of the Caucasian club was either naive or wanted to push the issue. For this reason, I have a hard time sympathizing with her current situation.

And to get to the topic of anger. It often seems that anger is portrayed as justifiable for some people and not for others, as achtungbaby pointed out. Often anger is portrayed as pathological for many groups, especially people of color and women. And I think racial anger is especially scary for people and therefore it is a target for delegitimization.

[kitty]

I think that being naive is not the same as being stupid. Being naive can come from lack of experience, exposure, education or simply youth. There is a developmental aspect to naivete that has to do with the tendency of young adults to think more concretely and to be unable to acknowledge seemingly contradictory ideas.

(Save this thread for ten years, hapakristina, and come back and see if you still agree with yourself.)

When you become active in working towards racial justice, it becomes clear that the issues are extremely complex. And unfortunately, the complexity seems to get larger and larger. At one point in my life I would have said that I had a good understanding of racial issues in this country. However, I now see that belief to be naive. After having worked in communities of color, I recognize that I had a very simplistic idea of the primacy of race in the United States.

Yellowworld is pretty clear on what it's about, "the cultivation of a social and political asian consciousness." And I'd hazard the guess that many people who flock to yellowworld come because of this. So when posters lack this consciousness, it's only natural that others might attempt to enlighten them. If people didn't expect this, I might say that they are naive. Or that they knew but they wanted to engage in this manner. Much in the same way that I feel that the founder of the Caucasian club was either naive or wanted to push the issue. For this reason, I have a hard time sympathizing with her current situation.

And to get to the topic of anger. It often seems that anger is portrayed as justifiable for some people and not for others, as achtungbaby pointed out. Often anger is portrayed as pathological for many groups, especially people of color and women. And I think racial anger is especially scary for people and therefore it is a target for delegitimization.

I agree, 'angry protests' are only a small part of the effectiveness of activism, but unforunately, I think activists get a bad rap because this is (understandably) the more visible aspect of the protest.

Hapakristina, here's a mini-example I believe of where 'anger' worked and where it didn't. On my campus, an Asian American girl was sexually attacked while walking home from the library. She was a freshman and at around 2am, she was assaulted by three white males who emerged out of a vehicle and threw her to the ground, where they groped her. When she struggled, they called her many racial epithets. (The attackers were never caught).

Now, many people didn't know about the incident when it happened, and fewer still were inclined to label it as a hate crime. My campus prides itself on its liberal mindedness, and its much more quick to forget instances of hate and violence than it is to deal with them, in order to maintain a pristine image of progressiveness. My student group jumped on the issue and organized a campuswide 'informative' rally -- trying to get people to acknowledge that the attack had occurred.

After our protest, administrators were forced to publicly address the issue and finally label it as a hate crime. Many higher ups in the administration had to take a vocal stand on the issue rather than stay silent as they were wont to do. The Cornell chief of the police, previously trying to keep the event under wraps finally released pertinent details of the incident (such as approximate time of the attack, a more detailed description of the attackers).

What concrete came out of it? Well, first, the campus was forced to recognize that Asian Americans (14% of our campus) face discrimination and have circumstances that differ from the rest of the white majority. (This came in hand later when we started addressing the trend of Asian American suicide here).

We also formed a series of committees with administration to try and improve safety and security on this campus. That was probably the best, most concrete thing that happened out of the incident. We also tried to implement a mandatory/optional race relations course that would try to educate the campus about minority issues. That is still being tested.

All in all, none of these positive outcomes would've happened if we hadn't gotten into people's faces, and forced the administration to take steps. Now, where the anger fell through is that we didnt' have sufficient followup. The two concrete outcomes were only a small part of a long list of demands that we could've tried to get, including a community center or a living/learning (dorm) hall as other minority groups have on our campus. "Anger" is good only to get people to sit up and take notice, after that, it's the strength and assertiveness of the select few community leaders who must make the issue make sense for the rest of the world, and then push through w/ followups.

[hapakristina]

I think that being naive is not the same as being stupid. Being naive can come from lack of experience, exposure, education or simply youth. There is a developmental aspect to naivete that has to do with the tendency of young adults to think more concretely and to be unable to acknowledge seemingly contradictory ideas.

(Save this thread for ten years, hapakristina, and come back and see if you still agree with yourself.)

see, but i don't think i'm naive at all. my difference of opinion doesn't stem from any kind of naivete, despite it being something that others here don't agree with or understand. it's not because i'm uneducated. it's not because i've been sheltered. and i don't think it's because i'm young. i really resent that people here that have known me for what.. a week (if that) are already starting to make those kinds of judgments about me and my character. i've made the same statements elsewhere and others understand where i am coming from and haven't been nearly as harsh in their disagreement with me.

if i am not leaning towards the asian side, then i'm considered naive and "whitewashed." i haven't sided with anyone and that's my point. once we start to take "sides" it becomes a us against them issue and i don't like that. that's why this world is as fucked up as it is already with people so freakin caught up in race. but if the "inferior" race groups are always holding resentment, bitterness, and anger towards the "superior" race group and the superior race group always goes about without any second thought to how the inferior race groups are affected.. nothing will ever change. and it's hopeless. and i choose to not live in a world where it's hopeless, through condoning predispositions, victimization, and "reverse" racism.

[kitty]

if i am not leaning towards the asian side, then i'm considered naive and "whitewashed." i haven't sided with anyone and that's my point.

I think this is where you're misinterpreting people. I think people are throwing the word naive around (rightly or wrongly) not because you disagree with them but because your opinions don't really seem to address the harsh reality of the world. You say that you don't want to support the race-fuelled direction of our society, but does the laissez-faire approach really do anything to change it? More importantly, you seem to be closing your eyes to how institutional racism *does* affect everyone, including yourself.

Let's face it, you may treat every white person as an individual but when they look at you, do you think they see a person or an "Asian-looking" person?

Hell, when you look at someone, do you recognize that they are white, black, indigo or whatever? Do you recognize that they are short, tall, skinny, fat? Male? Female? Then, based on all of this, do you make an assumptions about them at all? My money is that you do. We all do.

[hapakristina]

kittygirl, i had missed your post above mine because i was responding. see.. i'm not saying that when things happen, people should roll over and shouldn't do anything. of course they should. but sometimes people begin harboring that anger towards the entire group of people, instead of the incident. not right, in my eyes. i do realize the harsh realities of this world. does that mean that i should get angry and just go with what everyone else is doing and resent the white majority because of how unfair it is? i choose not to.

whether they choose to see me as an individual or not, that's not my problem. if they disrespect me for a reason other than an issue with who i am, then yes.. i will speak up and say something and handle that particular person. however, people take institutional racism against them and apply their anger with such treatment towards EVERYONE of that race group. that's wrong. i've never said, "oh cool.. after 9/11 we can have something in common and all hate arabs." why? i never hated arabs. i hated those individuals for what they did and think that we need to do something to see to it that those supporting such behavior are stopped so it won't happen again. but i never treated an arab person differently because of what a bunch of morons did to the WTC.

i will take that i'm idealistic. i used to never think i was, until my friend showed me how so. i don't find that offensive, it's just a different way of thinking. but i really do not think i'm naive. i'm just not someone to go with the crowds and how they're thinking and feeling simply because that's what the trend is. i stand firm in how i believe because this is what i believe. of course i notice such things as race, physical traits, and possibly even social class when i meet people. does it make me treat them any differently? that's something i strive in my everyday life to not do. i treat everyone equally, until they prove to me they're deserving otherwise. just because they may not be doing the same, doesn't mean that i should just say.. "well, since you're not. i'm not going to! HA!" that doesn't solve anything either and that would go against my personal principles.

[AngryABCGirl]

I'm not gonna read through all of this, because quite frankly I don't have time to nor want to, but from what I've seen lately, anger can be an important tool for mobilization, but too often it goes out of control. A lot of activism I've seen on campus seems to go toward pushing down whites instead of trying to get society to coexist with each other. People need to recognize their feelings of anger of pushing them to the carnal instinct of just hurting someone else and wield it to be more progressive.

[kitty]

Well obviously, hate is hate. HK, we're not really talking about hating the white majority, but we do have to treat the white majority as different from ethnic minorities. Actually, here's a question: do you believe in affirmative action?

I don't think i've ever condoned hatred against whites just because, but I don't think white man A is just like me and deserves to be treated just like me. He deserves to be thought of as neither better nor worse, but certainly differently.

My story above your post was to illustrate the usage of 'anger' or protests to try and get awareness of importance of racial issues, rather than to just talk about individuals. To do the individual approach to the above story would've been to condemn the attackers but to not pursue campuswide changes.

[>:^|]

I agree, 'angry protests' are only a small part of the effectiveness of activism, but unforunately, I think activists get a bad rap because this is (understandably) the more visible aspect of the protest.

People need to recognize their feelings of anger of pushing them to the carnal instinct of just hurting someone else and wield it to be more progressive.


I think that it is easy to be non-constructively angry. I can also understand when people want revenge instead of justice. These are two very different things. Simply tagging people as "angry" or "bitter" is a way to dismiss their concerns. However, I think that righteous anger can be the fuel that we need to institute change.

Sometimes I feel like people use the term "activist" in a disparaging manner. Just because people are activists for racial justice doesn't mean they all hate Whitey. But because this seems to be contradictory, it is easy to peg being "pro-Asian" as being "anti-White."

I mean, some of my best friends are White. :dry:

[nonamerasian]

. . .I don't think white man A is just like me and deserves to be treated just like me. He deserves to be thought of as neither better nor worse, but certainly differently.

Why exactly? Why differently?

[hapakristina]

Well obviously, hate is hate. HK, we're not really talking about hating the white majority, but we do have to treat the white majority as different from ethnic minorities. Actually, here's a question: do you believe in affirmative action?
no, i don't support AA. and i don't believe they should be treated differently just because they are different. and how do you treat them differently?

I don't think i've ever condoned hatred against whites just because, but I don't think white man A is just like me and deserves to be treated just like me. He deserves to be thought of as neither better nor worse, but certainly differently.
agreed that he's different, not better. given that, i treat white man A as i would treat asian man B and black man C and mexican man D and hapa man E.

My story above your post was to illustrate the usage of 'anger' or protests to try and get awareness of importance of racial issues, rather than to just talk about individuals. To do the individual approach to the above story would've been to condemn the attackers but to not pursue campuswide changes.
and my point was that i saw the need for such a protest. but if you start protesting against whites because of what these white guys did.. the whites that didn't agree with or think that what those guys did was wrong will begin to resent you and say, "why are you against me? just because i'm white? i don't agree with what those guys did." then how much "good" has your anger and protesting really done at that point?

[kitty]

I think that it is easy to be non-constructively angry. I can also understand when people want revenge instead of justice. These are two very different things. Simply tagging people as "angry" or "bitter" is a way to dismiss their concerns. However, I think that righteous anger can be the fuel that we need to institute change.

Sometimes I feel like people use the term "activist" in a disparaging manner. Just because people are activists for racial justice doesn't mean they all hate Whitey. But because this seems to be contradictory, it is easy to peg being "pro-Asian" as being "anti-White."

I mean, some of my best friends are White. :dry:

haha... yeah... I mean, I know especially on college campuses kids go to school hoping to find a little niche of ethnic similarity and hate on other communities as a way to feel better about their own situations. BTR has stated that this was the case with the Asian groups on his campus. I for one hav never witnessed such a thing. My group, as every group on my campus, was necessarily all-inclusive. That means we don't meet once a week to hate "whitey". Most protests are 'righteous anger'... and I think if you're going to dismiss all activists as being 'angry without a cause', you need to take the time to familiarize yourself with the message they are trying to relay before you dismiss them as such.

it's funny because activists are responsible for so much of the equality and positive things about our society. I love being proactive and knowing how to get something done when I see injustice happening.

[kitty]

and my point was that i saw the need for such a protest. but if you start protesting against whites because of what these white guys did.. the whites that didn't agree with or think that what those guys did was wrong will begin to resent you and say, "why are you against me? just because i'm white? i don't agree with what those guys did." then how much "good" has your anger and protesting really done at that point?

hey,if you're white and you agree with the particular cause I'm marching, come fall in line! you're more than welcome in the protest, but you have to recognize that some protests are against institional racism such as against the racial profiling tha occurred following 9/11. you can be supporting racism just by being silent.

[kitty]

Why exactly? Why differently?

well... i need to approach a white man as someone who will not understand what it's like for me to be asian, canadian, or a woman. I need to treat him as though he may have presuppositions about me and my bckground, or i can't assume he'll know what it's like to be treated as an ethnic minority in America... on and on and on. this man does not share my experiences so I won't be the same to him as I would be to an Asian-looking woman. That doesn't mean that this is a conscious difference in my actions -- but rather a product of how people relate and assume things bout people.

for example, if you're a woman and you need a tampon, would you be more likely to approach a woman or a man to ask for one? you know a woman is more likely to have one on her, so you'll ask her first, but that doens't mean the guy couldn't be carrying one around.

[>:^|]

haha... yeah... I mean, I know especially on college campuses kids go to school hoping to find a little niche of ethnic similarity and hate on other communities as a way to feel better about their own situations. BTR has stated that this was the case with the Asian groups on his campus. I for one hav never witnessed such a thing.

I think that this might be developmental as well. I've often seen people swing to an extreme before coming back to a more balanced position. One of the main concerns of the high-school/young adult years is fitting in. But being in an in-group often means creating an out-group.

Volkan wrote an interesting book on this topic. It's called something like The need to have enemies and allies.

[hapakristina]

hey,if you're white and you agree with the particular cause I'm marching, come fall in line! you're more than welcome in the protest, but you have to recognize that some protests are against institional racism such as against the racial profiling tha occurred following 9/11. you can be supporting racism just by being silent.
but that's what i'm saying. if you make it a "look at what these white guys did" and you keep pointing out that they were white and your anger and this racism coming from whites.. white people won't want to jump in with you guys. yes, there was racism. it came from a bunch of ignorant racist white dudes. so why not protest the racism and what happened, but if you make it out to be an asian vs. white thing.. there will never be racial harmony. i agree that silence is worse than the racism, but how you choose to speak out against this is extremely crucial. don't you think?

[kitty]

no, i don't support AA. and i don't believe they should be treated differently just because they are different.


maybe this is a whole other thread, but affirmative action is a necessary inequality in order to balance out existing, more major social inequities. Education is public and thus the quality of a school is right now only as good as the class of the neighbourhood in which it's found. The amount of money a school gets will be less if the surrounding neighbourhood who sends their kids there are less able to pay taxes.

black kids who grow up in poor neighbourhoods (and census' have indicated that this is often the case) tend to have poorer test scores often because of the poor quality of education they receive (this is excluding inequity of teachers on an individual level, since white teachers have been proven to sometimes devote less attention to black children, as well as the mistrust some black youth culture has developed of the 'white man's education.)

but affirmative action exists in a college setting in order to balance out these inequities. College is supposed to be about higher education -- but it requires a certain base prerequisite for getting in, right? Well, what if there's a black kid who is just as smart as you but had to go through poor education and still made it onto the honor roll or as valedictorian? but their SAT scores are 100 points less tha yours? or 50 points? or 10 points? ... do those test scores necessarily indicate that they are dumber than richer white kids who went to better schools?

so, affirmative action exists to try and get kids who have not had the same education or opportunities as middle or upper class kids to have the same chance at improving themselves. Without affirmative action, college would only be for the financial elite... rather than for the intellectual elite as it is now.

Those who don't support affirmative action generally believe that it is a form of institutional racism that will always further discrimination in our society. But, I think affirmative action exists so that one day it won't have to.

[hapakristina]

you know what's funny is that so many here are saying.. "they don't understand what it's like to be minorities." but do you think that you really have a grasp on what they go through too? has anyone here actually stopped and thought about the things i mentioned in the other thread?

probably not. everyone is a bit too focused on themselves to ever stop and consider another group of people. that's the point i've been making all along. we scream out, "hey, you don't know what it's like to be me (us)!!" but has anyone here ever stopped and really put themselves in the shoes of others (not just whites).

[hapakristina]

maybe this is a whole other thread, but affirmative action is a necessary inequality in order to balance out existing, more major social inequities. Education is public and thus the quality of a school is right now only as good as the class of the neighbourhood in which it's found. The amount of money a school gets will be less if the surrounding neighbourhood who sends their kids there are less able to pay taxes.

black kids who grow up in poor neighbourhoods (and census' have indicated that this is often the case) tend to have poorer test scores often because of the poor quality of education they receive (this is excluding inequity of teachers on an individual level, since white teachers have been proven to sometimes devote less attention to black children, as well as the mistrust some black youth culture has developed of the 'white man's education.)

but affirmative action exists in a college setting in order to balance out these inequities. College is supposed to be about higher education -- but it requires a certain base prerequisite for getting in, right? Well, what if there's a black kid who is just as smart as you but had to go through poor education and still made it onto the honor roll or as valedictorian? but their SAT scores are 100 points less tha yours? or 50 points? or 10 points? ... do those test scores necessarily indicate that they are dumber than richer white kids who went to better schools?

so, affirmative action exists to try and get kids who have not had the same education or opportunities as middle or upper class kids to have the same chance at improving themselves. Without affirmative action, college would only be for the financial elite... rather than for the intellectual elite as it is now.

Those who don't support affirmative action generally believe that it is a form of institutional racism that will always further discrimination in our society. But, I think affirmative action exists so that one day it won't have to.

i won't even get into why i don't support AA on this site. i'm having enough issues with people that disagree with my stance on the issue at hand. so i'll leave it at that.

[kitty]

I think that this might be developmental as well. I've often seen people swing to an extreme before coming back to a more balanced position. One of the main concerns of the high-school/young adult years is fitting in. But being in an in-group often means creating an out-group.

Volkan wrote an interesting book on this topic. It's called something like The need to have enemies and allies.

hmmm... I think you/volkan may be right, although i've never encountered it so I've never seen any indication that such rabid out-grouping will eventually balance out again.

I have however seen the CSA refuse to work with the KSA or the JUSA to form a pan-Asian committee.. even just to facilitate event planning because they refuse to acknowledge any connection between the individual communities... perhaps it's another form of out-grouping?

[AngryABCGirl]

haha... yeah... I mean, I know especially on college campuses kids go to school hoping to find a little niche of ethnic similarity and hate on other communities as a way to feel better about their own situations. BTR has stated that this was the case with the Asian groups on his campus. I for one hav never witnessed such a thing. My group, as every group on my campus, was necessarily all-inclusive. That means we don't meet once a week to hate "whitey". Most protests are 'righteous anger'... and I think if you're going to dismiss all activists as being 'angry without a cause', you need to take the time to familiarize yourself with the message they are trying to relay before you dismiss them as such.

it's funny because activists are responsible for so much of the equality and positive things about our society. I love being proactive and knowing how to get something done when I see injustice happening.


I think a lot of minority kids on campus are just scared by the hurt they've experience in their lives, and aren't ready to deal with it in a proactive way yet. Some poeople never get over it.

[kitty]

you know what's funny is that so many here are saying.. "they don't understand what it's like to be minorities." but do you think that you really have a grasp on what they go through too? has anyone here actually stopped and thought about the things i mentioned in the other thread?

probably not. everyone is a bit too focused on themselves to ever stop and consider another group of people. that's the point i've been making all along. we scream out, "hey, you don't know what it's like to be me (us)!!" but has anyone here ever stopped and really put themselves in the shoes of others (not just whites).

thanks for the insult. what makes you think that an opinion different from yours must be people who are 'too focused on themselves'... i thought you don't generalize.

No, I have no idea what a white man goes through. I do know that it's not the same thing as what I go through. And therein lies the difference. A white man doesn't have to deal with being arab and looking for a job (like so many of my arab friends who had to shave off all their facial hair to find a summer job, and still got rejected)... why are you insinuating something negative about minorities if they are simply recognizing that the ethnic minority experience is ... unique to ethnic minorities?

[hapakristina]

thanks for the insult. what makes you think that an opinion different from yours must be people who are 'too focused on themselves'... i thought you don't generalize.

No, I have no idea what a white man goes through. I do know that it's not the same thing as what I go through. And therein lies the difference. A white man doesn't have to deal with being arab and looking for a job (like so many of my arab friends who had to shave off all their facial hair to find a summer job, and still got rejected)... why are you insinuating something negative about minorities if they are simply recognizing that the ethnic minority experience is ... unique to ethnic minorities?

1) you're insulting whites. but that's okay? my point was simply that you're asking of another group to do something that you (and others) aren't even doing yourself.

2) it's not that an opinion different from mine is people too focused on themselves. it's that you talk like you have completely analyzed and considered what the other group has gone through.. which i don't think you have either. people see nothing wrong with grouping all whites together with whites that are racist. people see no problem with inequalities, as long as it's not towards them. my point is that some people aren't considering what it would be like to be on the other side. i'm positive it's not all as sweet and dandy as people like to believe, either.

3) agreed that a white man's experience is not the same as yours. but what does that mean? that it's okay to treat whites differently because they haven't gone through what you have? this is where i treat people on an individual basis. it does become personal at that point.. because i'm talking about how our view of the entire group affects how we personally interact and treat whites in our everyday lives.

4) i'm not insinuating that it's negative that minorities recognize they have experiences that are unique to them. i'm insinuating that it's wrong to treat others differently (often times negatively) because of these experiences. and i'm also insinuating that there is an experience to the ethnic majority (aka whites) that you may have no idea about... for the exact reason that you stated they don't know about your experience.

[ChinaLama]

Please discuss the issues w/o discussing each other. :)

[kitty]

1) you're insulting whites. but that's okay? my point was simply that you're asking of another group to do something that you (and others) aren't even doing yourself.


How is this insulting whites? I am merely saying that whites don't share my experience and I can't understand their's. Has this suddenly been classifed as an insult and I didn't get the memo?


2) it's not that an opinion different from mine is people too focused on themselves. it's that you talk like you have completely analyzed and considered what the other group has gone through.. which i don't think you have either. people see nothing wrong with grouping all whites together with whites that are racist. people see no problem with inequalities, as long as it's not towards them. my point is that some people aren't considering what it would be like to be on the other side. i'm positive it's not all as sweet and dandy as people like to believe, either.


No, I do make a distinction between whites who are explicitly racist, and those who do not. I do not make a distinction between whites... and whites. All white people benefit from the racist institution we all live in. Does that make them bad people? no. It does however give them an advantage over minorities that has to be *addressed* -- rather than ignored -- in order to resolve it.

I think you're asking me to empathize with white people -- put myself in their shoes. Well, I'm sorry but I can't. I'm not white. I will never empathize with the white 'hardships' that you have unclearly and very vaguely alluded to. It would be the same if a white, black or latino man walked up to me and said "I understand what you're going through as an Asian American". I would probably sock them because they couldn't have a clue what it's like to be Asian American. They can never 'empathize' with my experiences, however they *can* sympathize. And that I can offer... I can and do sympathize with white problems, such as the term 'reverse racism'... I just don't put much stock in it when I weigh it against the benefits that whites are privvy to.


3) agreed that a white man's experience is not the same as yours. but what does that mean? that it's okay to treat whites differently because they haven't gone through what you have? this is where i treat people on an individual basis. it does become personal at that point.. because i'm talking about how our view of the entire group affects how we personally interact and treat whites in our everyday lives.


Differently. Not better. Not worse. Differently. You can't just pretend that a white guy is just like a black guy -- that diminishes *both* of their collective life histories. Instead, you have to recognize racial difference, you just have to learn not to put much stock in the assumpations about their personalities and backgrounds because of their ethnicity.


4) i'm not insinuating that it's negative that minorities recognize they have experiences that are unique to them. i'm insinuating that it's wrong to treat others differently (often times negatively) because of these experiences. and i'm also insinuating that there is an experience to the ethnic majority (aka whites) that you may have no idea about... for the exact reason that you stated they don't know about your experience.

I don't treat people negatively. Thanks for jumping to yet another conclusion about me.

No, I don't have a clue about what white people go through as far as being 'victimized' by minorities. Does that mean that suddenly I can't be an activist for my own community -- that the voice and experiences I'm bringing to the table are suddenly invalidated because I'm not a technicolor dreamJenn?

[hapakristina]

okay, i'm off to work but i just wanted to say that some of my comments aren't directed at you personally. i don't know you personally, thus i'm not making conclusions about you and how you treat others. they are general statements about how many people do treat whites as a result of this "horrible" experience they feel they're a victim of and go through as a minority. however, one thing you have done is continued to talk about being asian-american like it's this horrible experience to be born with in this world. the "woe is me" act. and i don't feel that way at all.

but shit.. what the hell do i know, i'm half white and naive. so.. :rolleyes:

[kitty]

okay, i'm off to work but i just wanted to say that some of my comments aren't directed at you personally. i don't know you personally, thus i'm not making conclusions about you and how you treat others. they are general statements about how many people do treat whites as a result of this "horrible" experience they feel they're a victim of and go through as a minority. however, one thing you have done is continued to talk about being asian-american like it's this horrible experience to be born with in this world. the "woe is me" act. and i don't feel that way at all.

but shit.. what the hell do i know, i'm half white and naive. so.. :rolleyes:

y'know, I really don't understand why you use the phrase 'woe is me' to describe asian americans who are standing up for equal treatment. no one but you has used those terms... and you have yet to explain why, and frankly i find your derisiveness very off-putting. no one here is whining for the sake of whining -- if you don't agree with Asian American activists, the least you can do is not belittle us or our cause by describing it as a 'woe is me' attitude.

perhaps you have yet to experience blatant racism (I find this hard to believe...) or perhaps your attitude towards people has blinded you to racism when it does happen towards you. Either way, I'd like to hear what you have to say on it -- the derogatory ways you describe activism seem to have deeper roots than 'they're too angry and they hate whites'...

edit: btw, your constant use of the word 'you' in reference to quotes of my post led me to believe that you were talking to me.

[hapakristina]

y'know, I really don't understand why you use the phrase 'woe is me' to describe asian americans who are standing up for equal treatment. no one but you has used those terms... and you have yet to explain why, and frankly i find your derisiveness very off-putting. no one here is whining for the sake of whining -- if you don't agree with Asian American activists, the least you can do is not belittle us or our cause by describing it as a 'woe is me' attitude.
oh, but having a difference of opinion with many here and being told that this means i'm naive, ignorant, uneducated, and unfamiliar on the topic wasn't a belittling of my character? and it wasn't even by one person. by a multitude of people. why the double standard? my point is that all too often people play this victim role in society and it doesn't do anything to help the situation. it makes makes people bitter and resentful. it also has a tendency to allow people to form predispositions towards groups of people. this type of thinking is what i don't condone and what i believe helps perpetuate racism in this country, be it majority to minority groups or vice versa.


perhaps you have yet to experience blatant racism (I find this hard to believe...) or perhaps your attitude towards people has blinded you to racism when it does happen towards you. Either way, I'd like to hear what you have to say on it -- the derogatory ways you describe activism seem to have deeper roots than 'they're too angry and they hate whites'...
i have experienced blatant racism. but i hold that against that ignorant individual. i don't hold it against others that happen to be of that person's race. period.


edit: btw, your constant use of the word 'you' in reference to quotes of my post led me to believe that you were talking to me.
i apologize and will be more mindful and considerate of that in my posts. thanks.

[Tao]

i have experienced blatant racism. but i hold that against that ignorant individual. i don't hold it against others that happen to be of that person's race. period.

HK, i don't believe that Kitty is saying that she is holding the majority of whites accountable for the actions of a few. I think (from reading the thread) the points where you two diverge on is whether or not there is institutionalized racism within this country. Kitty gave the example of her Arab friends not able to get jobs, and just in general the "glass ceiling" in some corporate companies. That is what she is speaking out against. Not particular individuals, but the system that has resulted from the actions of a few whites that benefiet other whites (with or without those people's knowledge, since they aren't being harmed). This is where the difference lies. The realization of such inequaity, and choosing to either dosomething about it, or pray that the next boss you have isn't a racist, and doesn't hold your future in his/her hands.

[kitty]

oh, but having a difference of opinion with many here and being told that this means i'm naive, ignorant, uneducated, and unfamiliar on the topic wasn't a belittling of my character? and it wasn't even by one person. by a multitude of people. why the double standard? my point is that all too often people play this victim role in society and it doesn't do anything to help the situation. it makes makes people bitter and resentful. it also has a tendency to allow people to form predispositions towards groups of people. this type of thinking is what i don't condone and what i believe helps perpetuate racism in this country, be it majority to minority groups or vice versa.



you still haven't answered the original question. If you haven't yet, go back to my posts and notice that people calling you ignorant, naive, uneducated or whatever weren't me. I never did that -- and I don't. I'm challenging your opinions which I completely divorce from your character, so no, I don't think YOU are any of the above, though I may think your opinion may be a little naive.

Okay, well, what if the activists have a valid argument. Throwing away the "all too oftens" (which we can debate later)... what if we're talking about something genuine? Activists are not just playing a victim role, they are fighting for equality, and I think you might want to consider all the positive things activists have done for your community before you write us all off as melodramatic hatemongers.



i have experienced blatant racism. but i hold that against that ignorant individual. i don't hold it against others that happen to be of that person's race. period.


Great, now what about institutional racism? Racism that wasn't about name-calling, but about not being given the same opportunities as another community?

Look, just for the record, the reason I'm calling you out on the 'woe is me' thing is because I really think it's below the belt. If you're angry at the board for challenging your opinions, then please recognize that that's why we're here -- to challenge each other and debate issues.

That doesn't mean that an attack on your opinion is an attack on you. I don't know you from Mary, but you seem like a nice, well-meaning, optimistic person. I don't know if anyone has been explicit enough about underscoring the difference between thought and character. I'm personally offended because as a race activist, I know quite well that I am not playing the victim, and think that you are belittling my efforts be generalizing them as such without getting to know what I've done or how I did it.

On an aside, maybe certain people in this thread are feeling a little personally attacked by your opinion because many of them are hard-working activsts who have put their blood, sweat and tears into not only fashioning this site that was meant to be about Asian American political awareness and empowerment, but that much of their personal lives is about bettering the Asian American community through activist means. No one likes to be told that they are just wasting their time.

[hapakristina]

HK, i don't believe that Kitty is saying that she is holding the majority of whites accountable for the actions of a few. I think (from reading the thread) the points where you two diverge on is whether or not there is institutionalized racism within this country. Kitty gave the example of her Arab friends not able to get jobs, and just in general the "glass ceiling" in some corporate companies. That is what she is speaking out against. Not particular individuals, but the system that has resulted from the actions of a few whites that benefiet other whites (with or without those people's knowledge, since they aren't being harmed). This is where the difference lies. The realization of such inequaity, and choosing to either dosomething about it, or pray that the next boss you have isn't a racist, and doesn't hold your future in his/her hands.
and i've agreed that there is institutionalized racism that exists in this country and i've said that before but as i said, i don't think people read everything i post. i've never said that we live in this "happy happy neverneverland" as she had suggested i believe we lived in where discrimination doesn't exist. i've repeated myself until i was blue in the face that i know that this exists in this world.

i believe that people should do something about it. i repeated myself numerous times that people shouldn't roll over and take it. i have realized that there is inequality in this world.

do you people just think i'm this sheltered person that lives in this bubble with a yellow brick road in the land of oz or something!? :huh: i think everyone missed my whole post about how there's a dominant ethnic group and where minorities were versus where whites were.

[kitty]

and i've agreed that there is institutionalized racism that exists in this country and i've said that before but as i said, i don't think people read everything i post. i've never said that we live in this "happy happy neverneverland" as she had suggested i believe we lived in where discrimination doesn't exist. i've repeated myself until i was blue in the face that i know that this exists in this world.

i believe that people should do something about it. i repeated myself numerous times that people shouldn't roll over and take it. i have realized that there is inequality in this world.

do you people just think i'm this sheltered person that lives in this bubble with a yellow brick road in the land of oz or something!? :huh: i think everyone missed my whole post about how there's a dominant ethnic group and where minorities were versus where whites were.

no, i said you were trying to make a happy happy neverland. What I wonder is how your approach is expected to do anything to combat instituional racism?

[SunWuKong]

quite frankly, hapakristina, if i am interpretting what you're writing correctly, i think you have a pretty narrow and even insulting opinion of some of us.

according to you:

1) we are unable to see people as individuals, and we are unable to distinguish the difference between a racist and someone who is not a racist, simply because these two people share the same race.

2) when we speak out against racism, we are unjustifiably saying "woe is me" - basically we are whining.

as much as you'd like to think otherwise, people of different races are different, and they are treated differently, and sometimes it is only logical that they are treated differently. if i talk to someone who is black, i will talk to him as if he has an understanding of what it's like to be discriminated against by society. if i talk to someone who is Asian, i will talk to him as if he has an understanding of what it's like to be marginalised by society. if i talk to someone who is white, i will talk to him as if he doesn't understand racism as much as i do, because quite frankly, "none of my white friends have ever been called a chink and none of them have been punched for being a chink, but i have been." - which happens to be exactly what i told one of my white friends when i forwarded him an email about the Denny's incident a few years ago and he replied by saying that it was a made up spam and that racism has been eliminated in America.

you are against generalisation, but well, some things are not generalisations at all. a white man will never be presumed as a criminal for the colour of his skin, and a white man will never be presumed to be an English-illiterate foreigner for the colour of his skin.

[hapakristina]

well, i've been informed that i'm pissing off moderators because i feel differently. i didn't mean to offend anyone or disrespect people's positions. i respect a difference of opinion, but likewise i expect a certain amount of respect for my opinion and stance on things as well. my anger about this whole topic didn't come into play until people were starting to throw judgments and personal attacks against me.

i think i thought i could participate in this forum. but apparently i don't strongly support why it was brought together. with that said, i'll step down.

i apologize to those that i may have offended. good luck to all of you. take cares.

[SunWuKong]

hapakristina, nobody feels insulted simply because you feel differently. but some may be insulted because of the content of your opinions.

[ChinaLama]

How about this? Let's stop arguing over who's insulting who.

HK-- this is not meant to insult you, but I got the feeling, from your responses to a couple of posts, that you just don't happen to be well-acquainted with current Asian American issues. I'm not saying you're "naive" or "stupid" or "ignorant," but IF it's the case that you don't happen to know that much about AA issues, may I suggest you explore a little on YW's main page. Read some articles, maybe click on some of the links.

I hope I don't come off as condescending, but other than YW, you may also want to visit these sites: politicalcircus.com, modelminority.com, 80-20initiative.net, asianamericanpolitics.com (i think that's the URL, but I may be wrong). You may also want to google "Coble Japanese American internment," "Wen Ho Lee," and "Vincent Chin."

[rice cracker]

I think anger and activism go very well together because without anger to motivate you to get up and do something, 99% of the time one may be content to let others "handle it."

[tapestrybabe]

is anger really THAT bad of an emotion??
i mean, i can see where anger can get out of control and what not... but yeah, i think anger can be actually good in a way... anger... it can fuel you... mobilize you, and it can make you take charge...

[achtungbaby]

I look at it like this, and I think I've given this analogy already: knowing how to make rice, in of itself, doesn't make you a genius or even a very smart person. It's just what I call "functional knowledge" -- shit that anyone can pick up, and knowing it doesn't make you smarter or something, you just happen to know some a few facts tied together.

That said, let's move away from harping on HK. I don't agree with her posts obviously, but I also don't think people should be harrassing her: apparently, someone sent her an email saying she should leave the site since she's not Asian enough. She doesn't know who sent it.

[achtungbaby]

Side note: interestingly, I've found that anger can be an effective tool sometimes when dealing with a larger audience (as long as that anger is a controlled, articulate rage)...even more effective when you can still be polite and reasonble within smaller group dynamics...