View Full Version : "We Will Not Be Used" by Georgetown law professor Mari Matsuda
Kasia Lee: has anyone ever read georgetown law professor mari matsuda's 'we will not be used'? i think the principal may benefit from reading that. robin chou's article is the best example of how asian americans can be sucked into acting as a buffer between latinos/blacks and whites, used to deny the existence of racism and to promote the idea of pure meritocracy. use us, please. because we really are that easy.
here it is - please take the time to read it, perhaps the most eloquent and telling speech of all time for our community:
By Mari Matsuda
Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Asian American Pacific Islands Law Journal
©1993 Regents of the University of California; Mari Matsuda
Based on an April 1990 address to the Asian Law Caucus, first published February 1993
It is a special honor to address supporters of the Asian Law Caucus. Here, before this audience, I am willing to speak in the tradition of our women warriors, to go beyond the platitudes of fundraiser formalism, and to talk of something that's been bothering me and that I need your help on. I want to speak of my fear that Asian-Americans are in danger of becoming the racial bourgeoisie, and of my resolve to resist that path.
Marx wrote of the economic bourgeoisie -- the small merchants, the middle class, the baby capitalists--who were deeply confused about their self-interest. The bourgeoisie, he said, often emulate the manners and the ideology of the big-time capitalists. They are the wannabes of capitalism. Struggling for riches, often failing, confused about the reasons why, the economic wannabes go to their graves thinking that the big hit is right around the corner.
Living in 19th century Europe, Marx thought mostly in terms of class. Living in 20th century America, in the land where racism found a home, I am thinking about race. Is there a racial equivalent of the economic bourgeoisie? I fear there may be, and I fear it may be us.
If white, historically, is the top of the racial hierarchy in America, and black, historically, is the bottom, will yellow assume the place of the racial middle? The role of the racial middle is a critical one. It can reinforce white supremacy if the middle deludes itself into thinking it can be just like white if it tries hard enough. Conversely, the middle can dismantle white supremacy if it refuses to be the middle, if it refuses to buy into racial hierarchy, if it refuses to abandon communities of Black and Brown people, choosing instead to form alliances with them.
The theme of the unconventional fundraiser talk you are listening to is, "we will not be used." It is a plea to Asian-Americans to think about the ways in which our communities are particularly susceptible to playing the worst version of the racial bourgeoisie role.
In thinking this, I remember my mother's stories of growing up on a sugar plantation on Kauai. She tells of the Portuguese luna or overseer. The luna rode on a big horse and ordered the Japanese and Filipino workers around. The luna in my mother's stories is a tragic-comic figure. He thinks he is better than the other workers, but he doesn't realize that the plantation owner considers the luna sub-human, just like the other workers. The stereotype of the dumb portagee persists in Hawaii today, a holdover from the days of the luna parading around the big house, cloaked in self-delusion and false pride.
The double tragedy for the plantation nisei who hated the luna is that the sansei in Hawaii are becoming the new luna. Nice Japanese girls from Manoa Valley are going through four years of college to get degrees in Travel Industry Management, in order to sit behind a small desk in a big hotel, to dole out marching orders to brown-skinned workers and to take orders from a white man with a bigger desk and a bigger paycheck who never has to complicate his life by dealing with the brown people who make the beds and serve the food. He need only deal with the Nice Japanese Girl, ex-Cherry Blossom Queen, eager to please, who doesn't know she will never make it to the bigger desk.
The portagee luna now has the last laugh with this new unfunny portagee joke: when the portagee was the luna, he didn't have to pay college tuition to ride that horse.
I'd like to say to my sister behind the small desk, "remember where you came from and take this pledge: we will not be used."
There are one hundred ways to use the racial bourgeoisie. Here are some examples:
When Asian-Americans manage to do well, their success is used against others. Internally, it is used to erase the continuing poverty and social dislocation within Asian-American communities. The media is full of stories of Asian-American whiz kids. Their successes are used to erase our problems and to disavow any responsibility for them. The dominant culture doesn't know about drug abuse in our communities, about our high school dropouts, our AIDS victims.
Suggestions that some segments of the Asian-American community need special help are greeted with suspicion and disbelief. External to our communities, our successes are used to deny racism and to put down other groups. African-Americans and Latinos and poor whites are told, "look at those Asians--anyone can make it in this country if they really try." The cruelty of telling this to crack babies, to workers displaced by runaway shops, and to families waiting in line at homeless shelters, is not something I want associated with my genealogy.
Yes, my ancestors made it in this country, but they made it against the odds. In my genealogy and probably in yours, are people who went to bed hungry, who lost land to the tax collector, who worked to exhaustion and ill-health, who faced pain and relocation with the bitter stoicism we call, in Japanese, "gaman." Many who came the hard road of our ancestors didn't make it. Their bones are still in the mountains by the tunnels they blasted for the railroad, still in the fields where they stooped over the short-handled hoe, still in the graveyards of Europe, where they fought for a democracy that didn't include them. Asian success was success with a dark, painful price.
To use that success to discount the hardship facing poor and working people in this country today is a sacrilege to the memory of our ancestors. It is an insult to today's Asian-American immigrants, who work the double-triple shift, who know no leisure, who crowd two and three families to a home, who put children and old-folks alike to work at struggling family businesses or at home doing piece-work until midnight. Yes, we take pride in our success, but we should also remember the cost. The success that is our pride is not to be given over as a weapon to use against other struggling communities. I hope we will not be used to blame the poor for their poverty.
Nor should we be used to deny employment or educational opportunities to others. A recent exchange of editorials and letters in the Asian-American press reveals confusion over affirmative action. Racist anti-Asian quotas at the universities can give quotas a bad name in our community. At the same time, quotas have been the only way we've been able to walk through the door of persistently discriminatory institutions like the San Francisco fire department.
We need affirmative action because there are still employers who see an Asian face and see a person unfit for a leadership position. In every field where we have attained a measure of success, we are underrepresented in the real power positions. And yet, we are in danger of being manipulated into opposing affirmative action by those who say affirmative action hurts Asian-Americans.
What's really going on here? When university administrators have secret quotas to keep down Asian admissions, this is because Asians are seen as destroying the predominantly white character of the university. Under this mentality, we can't let in all those Asian over-achievers and maintain affirmative action for other minority groups. We can't do both because that will mean either that our universities lose their predominantly white character, or that we have to fund more and better universities. To either of those prospects, I say, "why not?" And I condemn the voices from our own community that are translating legitimate anger at ceilings on Asian admissions into unthinking opposition to affirmative action floors needed to fight racism.
In a period when rates of educational attainment for minorities and working class Americans are going down, in a period when America is lagging behind other developed nations in literacy and learning, I hope we will not be used to deny educational opportunities to the disadvantaged and to preserve success only for the privileged.
Another classic way to use the racial bourgeoisie is as America's punching bag. There is a lot of rage in this country, and for good reason. Our economy is in shambles. Persistent unemployment is creating new ghost towns, new soup kitchens, from coast to coast. The symptoms of decay--the drugs, the homelessness, the violence--are everywhere. From out of this decay comes a rage looking for a scapegoat, and a traditional American scapegoat is the oriental menace. From the Workingman's Party that organized white laborers around an anti-Chinese campaign in California in 1877, to the World War II internment fueled by resentment of the success of issei farmers, to the murder of Vincent Chin, to the terrorizing of Korean merchants in ghetto communities today, there is an unbroken line of poor and working Americans turning their anger and frustration into hatred of Asian-Americans.
Every time this happens, the real villains--the corporations and politicians who put profits before human needs--are allowed to go about their business free from public scrutiny. And the anger that could go to organizing for positive social change goes instead to Asian-bashing.
Will we be used as America's punching bag? We can prevent this by organizing to publicize and to fight racist speech and racist violence wherever we find it. More importantly, however, Asian-Americans must take a prominent role in advocating economic justice. We must show that Asian-Americans are allies of the working poor, of the unemployed, of the ghetto teenager. If we can show our commitment to ending the economic upheaval that feeds anti-Asian sentiment, the displaced rage that terrorizes Asian-Americans will turn upon more deserving targets. If we can show sensitivity to the culture and needs of other people of color when we do business in their communities, we will maintain our welcome there, as we have in the past. I hope we can do this so we can put an end to being used as America's punching bag.
The problem of displaced anger is also an internal problem for Asian- Americans. You know the story: the Japanese pick on the Okinawans; the Chinese pick on the Filipinos; the Samoans pick on the Laotians. On the plantations we scabbed on each other's strikes. In Chinatown, we've competed over space. There are Asian men who batter Asian women, Asian parents who batter their children. There is homophobia in our communities--tied to a deep fear that we are already so marginalized by white society that any additional difference is intolerable. I've heard of straight Asian men say they feel so emasculated by white society, that they cannot tolerate assertive women or sexually ambiguous men. This is a victim's mentality; the tragic symptom of a community so devoid of self respect that it brings its anger home.
I love my Asian brothers, but I've lost my patience with malingering homophobia and sexism, and especially with using white racism as an excuse to resist change. You know, the "I have to be Bruce Lee because the white man wants me to be Tonto" line. Yes, the J-town boys with their black leather jackets are adorable, but the pathetic need to put down straight women, gays, and lesbians is not. To anyone in our communities who wants to bring their anger home, let's say, "cut it out." We will not be used against each other.
If you know Hawaiian music, you know of the ha'ina line that tells of a song about to end. This speech is about to end. It will end by recalling echoes of Asian-American resistance.
In anti-eviction struggles in Chinatowns from coast to coast and in Hawaii we heard the song, "We Shall Not Be Moved." For the 90's, I want to sing, "We Shall Not Be Used." I want to remember the times when Asian-Americans stood side-by-side with African-Americans, Latinos, and progressive whites to demand social justice. I want to remember the multi-racial ILWU (International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Workers' Union) that ended the plantation system in Hawaii. I want to remember the multi-racial sugar beet strikes in California that brought together Japanese, Filipino and Chicano workers to fulfill their dreams of a better life. I want to remember the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born that brought together progressive Okinawan, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and European immigrants to fight McCarthyism and deportation of political activists. I want to remember the San Francisco State College strike, and the Asian-American students who stood their ground in a multi-racial coalition to bring about ethnic studies and lasting changes in American academic life, changes that make it possible for me, as a scholar, to tell the truth as I see it.
In remembering the San Francisco State strike, I also want to remember Dr. Hayakawa and ask what he represented. For a variety of historical and cultural reasons, Asian-Americans are particularly susceptible to being used by the dominant society. Nonetheless, we have resisted being used; we have joined time and again in the struggle for democracy in America. The Asian Law Caucus represents that tradition. The Caucus is a concrete manifestation of the pledge to seek a better life for the least advantaged and to work in coalition with other groups. All of you who support the Caucus help keep alive a utopian vision of a world free from racism and poverty. You honor the proudest moments in our collective histories.
When I told a friend about this speech, he sent me a newsclipping from the Chronicle about Asian-Americans as the retailer's dream. It starts out, "[t]hey're young, [t]hey're single, [t]hey're college educated and on the whitecollar track. And they like to shop for fun." Does that describe you? Well, it may describe me, too. But I hope there is more to Asian-American identity than that. I hope we will be known to history as a people who remembered the hard road of their ancestors, and who shared, therefore, a special commitment to social justice.
This song is now at an end, a song of my hope that we will not be used.
yoMAMA
05-25-2005, 10:46 AM
interesting speech.
I think I've heard of her using sociology/feminist theories in legal studies.
This was posted in the Alhambra High School thread. I dunno if she still teaches at Georgetown. Looks like it was written in 1990. All the good essays and books are hidden and tucked away!
interesting speech.
I think I've heard of her using sociology/feminist theories in legal studies.Alot of law schools have joint programs with sociology now.
Speaking of sociological essays I'm gonna get Ed Said's Orientalism from the library and read it. Kasia posted about a new Asian American journal which mentionned him alot. I think he's very relevant to the Asian American and Asian community.
I think I've heard of her using sociology/feminist theories in legal studies.
Yep, she is still there
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/news/matsuda.htm
UCLA's Amerasia Journal. Its current issue is "Orientalism and the Legacy of Ed Said".
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=23936
She's the first tenured female Asian American law professor in the United States. She is at UCLA law school:
The first tenured female Asian American law professor in the United States (UCLA, 1998), Mari J. Matsuda is, she says, an "activist scholar." Her intellectual influence extends beyond law reviews (she authored three entries on a Yale Law School librarian's list of the ten most-cited law review articles) to include articles in academic and popular journals such as Amerasia Journal and Ms. Magazine. One of the primary voices in critical race theory since its inception, Professor Matsuda is a nationally recognized expert on civil rights, feminist theory, affirmative action, and hate speech; her publications on reparations and affirmative action are frequently cited.
Professor Matsuda is firmly committed to the values inherent in a liberal arts education, and to broadening access to and applications of that education. She was recently quoted in the Northwest Asian Weekly as saying, “If you don't know how to read and think critically and participate effectively in the democratic conversation, you have no power in this world. Equality requires education. The civil rights movement has always understood this” (January 17, 2004).
A frequent keynote speaker, Professor Matsuda's national stature beyond as well as within the academy is reflected in two recent achievements: As a board member of the Chevron-Texaco Task Force on Equality and Fairness, she coauthored its final report in 2002, and she received the 2003 Society of American Law Teachers Human Rights Award at the American Association of Law Schools Conference.
TB4000
05-25-2005, 11:09 AM
Quite the eye opener...the latino and black community needs to read that as well.
...displaced anger is also an internal problem for Asian- Americans. You know the story: the Japanese pick on the Okinawans; the Chinese pick on the Filipinos; the Samoans pick on the Laotians.
displaced means "wrongly placed"
Is she trying to direct anger towards some other race? :confused:
hooligan
05-25-2005, 11:53 AM
displaced means "wrongly placed"
Is she trying to direct anger towards some other race? :confused:
I believe it's wrongly directed is a better contextual meaning.
I believe it's wrongly directed is a better contextual meaning.
thank you for english lesson,
back to topic, it feels that Professor Matsuda laments not the ANGER itself but that wrong direction if ANGER.
I thought that ANGER is bad, non-productive emotion.
People should get "ANGER MANAGEMENT" classes, not "DIRECT YOUR ANGER AT RIGHT RACE" classes. :smile:
hooligan
05-25-2005, 12:07 PM
thank you for english lesson,
back to topic, it feels that Professor Matsuda laments not the ANGER itself but that wrong direction if ANGER.
I thought that ANGER is bad, non-productive emotion.
People should get "ANGER MANAGEMENT" classes, not "DIRECT YOUR ANGER AT RIGHT RACE" classes. :smile:
No, the point of her speech was to talk about working in coalitions and not forgetting about race. It's not about anger, rather liberation and you're welcome, troll.
No, the point of her speech was to talk about working in coalitions and not forgetting about race.
Coalition of black, latino and asian community? Against who?
Anyway this kind of coalition is impossible. You are wasting your time, you better get some english lesson yourself and learn that
"hooligan is a person,who commits acts of vandalism or criminal damage, starts fights, and who causes disturbances."
describes you well, anyway. :wink:
hooligan
05-25-2005, 12:45 PM
Coalition of black, latino and asian community? Against who?
Anyway this kind of coalition is impossible. You are wasting your time, you better get some english lesson yourself and learn that
"hooligan is a person,who commits acts of vandalism or criminal damage, starts fights, and who causes disturbances."
describes you well, anyway. :wink:
You obviously haven't been on this forum long enough. This coalition is possible, it's not going to be against anyone. She's speaking in figurative and idealistic terms. It's about empowering ourselves and working for a greater good. The world is not black and white and neither is her speech. And no, it's not a "kill all white man" kind of speech either, don't be so threatened, we're hear to save you not reaffirm the structures of oppression.
This coalition is possible, it's not going to be against anyone.
That reminds me of Great Aspirations of Communist party of USA.
those guys almost win over.
http://www.cpusa.org/
:biggrin: :rolleyes:
displaced means "wrongly placed"
Is she trying to direct anger towards some other race? :confused:
Or maybe she was implying that anger shouldn't be directed towards a race or races, genius.
It is not about this race against that race. The Matsuda article is presenting some experiences of Asian Americans, thereby pointing out problems with the model minority stereotype and the implicated exploitations by such a stereotype that are often not made aware of and are accepted without critical thinking. "We will not be used" is referring to we will not be used by a stereotype. It can also be applied in a bigger context, as in we (blacks, whites, latinos, asians, mixed races) will not be used by general perceptions, perceived norms and policies that turn ignorance into facts, that divide people and turn them into sheep without critical thinking and broader understanding. The coalition is of the human race against conforming to uncritical thinking, stereotypes, close-minded policies and lack of genuine understanding.
hooligan
05-25-2005, 02:03 PM
Or maybe she was implying that anger shouldn't be directed towards a race or races, troll.
edited, i hope you didn't mind.
edited, i hope you didn't mind.
Ha,ha
I'm flattered how much time you spend making fool of yourself.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Do you sincerely think you can offend me? :rolleyes:
repeat "troll" 100 times and think again:
"Why black kid with low SAT score get to be admitted and asian kid with higher score NOT?" How this affirmative action helps asian community?
OH I KNOW YOUR ANSWER, IT'S "TROLL" :biggrin:
hooligan
05-25-2005, 03:07 PM
Quite the eye opener...the latino and black community needs to read that as well.
I think everyone ought to read it, not just minorities of color. There are a lot of other people who are disenfranchised by this current system that we have going. Matsuda's speech speaks beyond just color barriers. I find that the audience she's writing this speech for as important as the writer. She's clearly writing to the middle class APIAs, and not just middle class, but well educated middle class. Now, extending this further, you can say she's directing it all people who are considered middle class and from that you can clearly see a class, race, and gender focus of her speech.
golden_buns
05-25-2005, 06:00 PM
Wow, that was very interesting, I had already thought about some of those things before.
The funny thing is that there's plenty of fellow asian-americans who are like the "luna" or overseer, and act as puppets claiming that there is equality for us and that we're whinning when other asian-americans point out something that is not fair for us. I think the LA Riots, the quotas on us on jobs and college admissions, and the way we're represented in the media shows a different reality. And I think most of it happens because racism against us is nothing balatantly visible but rather very subtle. Hence, the APIA many times can't come to an agreement on wether something was racist or not nor we can prove that something was racist easily.
To be honest I think this is the hardest form of racism to be fought because the subtleness makes it hard to prove that it's racism and it also gives them easy scapegoats such as; "oh, we have to place quotas on asians because we have to give representation to african-americans and hispanics at school, it's about equal opportunity"
We're the "house niggers" like she says. We think we'll get although we never will unless we change.
Her essay makes is crystal clear, doesn't it? Whites divide and conquer intentionally.
We're the "house niggers" like she says. We think we'll get although we never will unless we change.
In a way... yes...
Her essay makes is crystal clear, doesn't it?
It is clear.
Whites divide and conquer intentionally.
But I don't think that's the message of Matsuda's article.
Chu Chi
05-25-2005, 07:01 PM
The question is:
"We will not be used by WHO"?
*excuse me*
"Whom"?
CC
hooligan
05-25-2005, 07:19 PM
But I don't think that's the message of Matsuda's article.
I think it has something to do with working together with other "oppressed" peoples and learning that we must struggle together. It's true though, even though Matsuda's article doesn't talk about it specifically. The dominant power/culture in this society polarizes minorities and makes us work against each other.
golden_buns
05-25-2005, 07:21 PM
I think it has something to do with working together with other "oppressed" peoples and learning that we must struggle together. It's true though, even though Matsuda's article doesn't talk about it specifically. The dominant power/culture in this society polarizes minorities and makes us work against each other.
That's very utopic though, if us asians have been barely able to unite, now imagine trying to unite us with other minorities
returntosender
05-25-2005, 07:24 PM
nola's right.
And I think Matsuda is illustrating the fact that successful Asians tend to forget that they're historically linked to a people that has been oppressed and struggled to get to where they are at today. Apparently, achieving the 'American Dream' also means to go blind on the social shackles that continues to keep us, a very visible minority group, down on its knees.
hooligan
05-25-2005, 07:25 PM
That's very utopic though, if us asians have been barely able to unite, now imagine trying to unite us with other minorities
Utopic, yeah, I agree it's very idealistic, but it's something we must work toward. (No matter how unlikely it might be)
yoMAMA
05-25-2005, 08:32 PM
Wow, that was very interesting, I had already thought about some of those things before.
The funny thing is that there's plenty of fellow asian-americans who are like the "luna" or overseer, and act as puppets claiming that there is equality for us and that we're whinning when other asian-americans point out something that is not fair for us. I think the LA Riots, the quotas on us on jobs and college admissions, and the way we're represented in the media shows a different reality. And I think most of it happens because racism against us is nothing balatantly visible but rather very subtle. Hence, the APIA many times can't come to an agreement on wether something was racist or not nor we can prove that something was racist easily.
To be honest I think this is the hardest form of racism to be fought because the subtleness makes it hard to prove that it's racism and it also gives them easy scapegoats such as; "oh, we have to place quotas on asians because we have to give representation to african-americans and hispanics at school, it's about equal opportunity"
good point.
we have to fight to dismantle those subtle forms of discrimination.
I think a good place to start would be litigations against colleges and universities that have "quotas/ceilings" against asian american applicants.
Thank god she makes it clear with the help of some Marxist and critical race theory.
Start a thread or rejoin the college admissions quota threads.
yoMAMA
05-25-2005, 08:56 PM
Thank god she makes it clear with the help of some Marxist and critical race theory.
Start a thread or rejoin the college admissions quota threads.
There has been some mainstream media coverage of the sublte discriminations asian americans face in certain selective colleges/universities.
A while ago there was articles on washington post education section about this.....
That would be an interesting thread!
hooligan
05-25-2005, 10:39 PM
That would be an interesting thread!
It was well documented that APIAs were discriminated against in the early 90s and late 80s. And no, it wasn't because of Affirmative Action, it was due to good old racism.
kasia
05-25-2005, 10:40 PM
she was also named in the 'asian female role model' thread in the women's forum back in 2002 or 2003.
yoMAMA
05-25-2005, 10:48 PM
It was well documented that APIAs were discriminated against in the early 90s and late 80s. And no, it wasn't because of Affirmative Action, it was due to good old racism.
yeah, and it's funny how everytime asian americans/other anti discrimination groups points it out, "their" responses invariably was "oh.....we have to discriminate you guys.....so we can have AA for under represented minorities".
but why should both of those goals to be in conflict of eachother?
and its very clever for the ward connelly of the world to use asian americans as their "trump card" when we suit their anti AA agendas.
when we don't....they just pretend we don't exist.
returntosender
05-25-2005, 11:09 PM
It's strange but on another Asian american related forum, people overwhelmingly thought that Matsuda is something of a nutcase. They think it's mostly just propaganda and ill-researched generalizations.
yoMAMA
05-25-2005, 11:14 PM
It's strange but on another Asian american related forum, people overwhelmingly thought that Matsuda is something of a nutcase. They think it's mostly just propaganda and ill-researched generalizations.
well she does not subscribe to the "norm", and we know how society views people that are "deviant".
Which forum is it? Is it a typically male-dominated one? After reading her essay do you think she's a nutcase?
Wow, YW's come a long way since 2002 when our female role models were: mom, britney spears, anna nicole smith, alicia keys, superwoman, kristen kreuk, the powerpuff girls, etc. oh and mari matsuda in the first post by kasie lee:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=638&highlight=matsuda
well she does not subscribe to the "norm", and we know how society views people that are "deviant".So since 8 out of 10 YW'ers agree with the essay, we're abnormal and deviant, right?
You guys just can't take a smart, assertive woman!
Just like her essay asserts.
yoMAMA
05-25-2005, 11:22 PM
Which forum is it? Is it a typically male-dominated one? After reading her essay do you think she's a nutcase?
Wow, YW's come a long way since 2002 when our female role models were: mom, britney spears, anna nicole smith, alicia keys, superwoman, kristen kreuk, the powerpuff girls, etc. oh and mari matsuda in the first post by kasie lee:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=638&highlight=matsuda
the good ole days........
[wipes away tears] :wink:
golden_buns
05-25-2005, 11:26 PM
the good ole days........
[wipes away tears] :wink:
COCK POWAH!!!
It's strange but on another Asian american related forum, people overwhelmingly thought that Matsuda is something of a nutcase. They think it's mostly just propaganda and ill-researched generalizations.
I don't think Matsuda is a nutcase. I agree with most of it but not all of it. I think her essay is insightful. :smile:
At the same time, it is also good to look at different perspectives as well.
I know it's hard to change after millenia and centuries but it hurts women when men don't change.
kasia
05-25-2005, 11:35 PM
It's strange but on another Asian american related forum, people overwhelmingly thought that Matsuda is something of a nutcase. They think it's mostly just propaganda and ill-researched generalizations.
well, it's hard to argue against that opinion since it's stated so broadly. in response, all i can say is that she's clearly not.
and we can go back and forth on that.
returntosender
05-25-2005, 11:35 PM
Not quite. They're just regular Asian American folk like us. For some reason they disagree with her. I'm not really sure why, I was kinda hoping for enlightenment. The essay isn't as straightforward as it seems though. There are elements that are, at this moment, veiled to objective scrutiny. I assure you though, the people at the forum are all about fair and equal representation of Asian Americans-just as we are-but they don't believe Matsuda's path and perspective is the right way. I think there is something I'm missing, or that we're all missing. How privvy are you to the political activities of other 'special interest' groups?
You guys don't nitpick Asian guys' essays like you are this one. You're all intidated and condescending because a woman wrote it. You'd give the Alhambra High School kid more respect and credit than Mari Matsuda.
What forum was it?
returntosender
05-25-2005, 11:56 PM
What 'guys'? I'm not nitpicking anyone-just being something of a devil's advocate. For my part, I agree with Matsuda 80%-and I might agree with her some more after going through that essay again tomorrow. I just think that sometimes that subjectivity and error can be masked by eloquence.
golden_buns
05-25-2005, 11:59 PM
You guys don't nitpick Asian guys' essays like you are this one. You're all intidated and condescending because a woman wrote it. You'd give the Alhambra High School kid more respect and credit than Mari Matsuda.
What forum was it?
It could be because it's the wee hours of the night over there, but I think so far the vast majority has agreed on her essay or at least on most of her points.
Personally, gender doesn't make a difference on the credibility of the author nor I find it intimidating when a woman is right
What 'guys'? I'm not nitpicking anyone-just being something of a devil's advocate. For my part, I agree with Matsuda 80%-and I might agree with her some more after going through that essay again tomorrow. I just think that sometimes that subjectivity and error can be masked by eloquence.You'd probably not go over that racist kid's essay or have to "think about it overnight" to deem it valid. It's valid. It resonates with truth. And all you men can't deal with it on this thread or the Alhambra thread simply because she's a woman. I see this all the time.
returntosender
05-26-2005, 12:11 AM
You'd probably not go over that racist kid's essay or have to "think about it overnight" to deem it valid. It's valid. It resonates with truth. And all you men can't deal with it on this thread or the Alhambra thread simply because she's a woman. I see this all the time.
Ok. I'm not going along with this. It's one of those arguments that I CAN'T possibly win.
deez nuts
05-26-2005, 07:58 AM
it's a good essay. whether one agrees with her or disagrees with her , the essay is very well written.
on a somewhat related note. i'm not an authority on asian american activists. it's basically limited to the scope of what is featured here on yw. but, why is it that some of these asian american activist women that i see that are featured on yw are married to black guys especially the japanese ones. i would look to her as an expert in race relations i.e. minority race relations. but, i would be wary to look to her particularly as a representative for me as an asian male living in america. i'm starting to think that asian american activists don't have asian spouses and to a certain it's become somewhat comical.
haplesshobo
05-26-2005, 08:12 AM
nola,
i have no idea where you're coming up with those accusations. it has nothing to do with the fact that the speaker was female or not.
the reason why people would be more critical towards her article versus the high school editoral is that mari's speech is directly talking about us and challenging asian men. i found the alhambra article racist, but ultimately, it was more about the general academic failure of the hispanic students than really about asians. i'm not going to apologize for the fact that i'm going to pay closer attention to something that's about me or my friends than complete strangers. and, when you pay closer attention to something, you're more likely to spot something wrong.
obviously, a conservative reader is going to disagree with her liberal stance on the issuses and maybe that's why they were so hostile towards her message rather than her gender. i don't think mari is a 'nutcase', as she does raise some interesting and valid points.
but, i disagree with her message and where she's going with it despite the eloquence of the speech. i disagreed with some of her assertions, especially her pseudo psycho analysis that white america's mistreatment of asian americans is showing up in displaced anger in our sexism, racism towards other minority groups, homophobia, etc...
but, those are things that we brought with us from asia and our part of our culture. go back to asia, with none of the influences of white america, and you'll see this same sexism, racism towards different asian groups, homophobia, etc... in fact, its probably even worse than what you see here.
she mentione how it was about class, then it was about race. well, i think, its swinging back towards class now. she talks about the need for quotas and affirmative action in colleges. but, i really wonder if looking at race brings the diversity the colleges expect. who do you think has more in common? a rich black kid who grew up with rich white kids in the same neighborhood, rich white kid who grew up with the rich black kid, or poor black kid in the ghetto? I suspect that IR couples are always from the same class, and how that's more important than racial difference.
returntosender,
what was the forum. i might want to browse through it.
yoMAMA
05-26-2005, 08:49 AM
it's a good essay. whether one agrees with her or disagrees with her , the essay is very well written.
on a somewhat related note. i'm not an authority on asian american activists. it's basically limited to the scope of what is featured here on yw. but, why is it that some of these asian american activist women that i see that are featured on yw are married to black guys especially the japanese ones. i would look to her as an expert in race relations i.e. minority race relations. but, i would be wary to look to her particularly as a representative for me as an asian male living in america. i'm starting to think that asian american activists don't have asian spouses and to a certain it's become somewhat comical.
iris chang was married to a white guy, too.
:wink:
she's married to a black guy? well i'm sure he's an activist too then. they probably have everything in common. there are very few asian male activists who are sympathetic to feminism. on here, there's just ben, kay, elbert and couple others and i love them. you're all free to join in the fray but you don't because you think it diminishes your manhood. in reality they're real men. my brothers are dad are very sympathetic to feminism and i'd want someone like them.
yoMAMA
05-26-2005, 08:53 AM
say cheese!
http://www.asianweek.com/053097/images/feature-authors.jpg
mari and her husband charles lawrance [i think he too is a law professor at georgetown and a scholar of the "critical race theory" school.
http://www.asianweek.com/053097/feature.html
:wink:
hooligan
05-26-2005, 08:55 AM
nola,
i have no idea where you're coming up with those accusations. it has nothing to do with the fact that the speaker was female or not.
the reason why people would be more critical towards her article versus the high school editoral is that mari's speech is directly talking about us and challenging asian men. i found the alhambra article racist, but ultimately, it was more about the general academic failure of the hispanic students than really about asians. i'm not going to apologize for the fact that i'm going to pay closer attention to something that's about me or my friends than complete strangers. and, when you pay closer attention to something, you're more likely to spot something wrong.
obviously, a conservative reader is going to disagree with her liberal stance on the issuses and maybe that's why they were so hostile towards her message rather than her gender. i don't think mari is a 'nutcase', as she does raise some interesting and valid points.
but, i disagree with her message and where she's going with it despite the eloquence of the speech. i disagreed with some of her assertions, especially her pseudo psycho analysis that white america's mistreatment of asian americans is showing up in displaced anger in our sexism, racism towards other minority groups, homophobia, etc...
but, those are things that we brought with us from asia and our part of our culture. go back to asia, with none of the influences of white america, and you'll see this same sexism, racism towards different asian groups, homophobia, etc... in fact, its probably even worse than what you see here.
she mentione how it was about class, then it was about race. well, i think, its swinging back towards class now. she talks about the need for quotas and affirmative action in colleges. but, i really wonder if looking at race brings the diversity the colleges expect. who do you think has more in common? a rich black kid who grew up with rich white kids in the same neighborhood, rich white kid who grew up with the rich black kid, or poor black kid in the ghetto? I suspect that IR couples are always from the same class, and how that's more important than racial difference.
returntosender,
what was the forum. i might want to browse through it.
I think it's a case of sexism where men can't stand what a woman says. She's intellegent, this speech makes sense and it's something that criticizes two things: 1. wealth of white collared APIAs and 2. sexism in APIA men.
I also don't understand why people think she's a nutcase and in regards to CSB's post. I don't understand why people don't think these women can speak for the APIA community? If I married out would I lose my "legitimacy" too? Does she all of a sudden have to revoke her APIA status because she married someone who isn't APIA? If I married someone who was Latina/Black/White, does that mean I'm less APIA? I don't believe so, but convince me otherwise. Maybe they need a lesson in race and gender theory.
Also, bringing the argument to an ethnic level, if I didn't marry Chinese, would I still be considered Chinese? Or a voice for the Ccinese people? This is strange to me.
I'm reading A LOT of disagreement, but nothing substantial in regards to WHY you disagree. Is it just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Is there even analysis to back these thoughts up?
After studying critical race theory and dabbling in gender theory, I really have to say she's dead on in her analysis. She makes arguments on power and how race and gender is used to reinforce the power. What I'm reading is just a lot of hate and no analysis to back it up.
yoMAMA
05-26-2005, 08:57 AM
but, those are things that we brought with us from asia and our part of our culture. go back to asia, with none of the influences of white america, and you'll see this same sexism, racism towards different asian groups, homophobia, etc... in fact, its probably even worse than what you see here.
while i agree with your assertion that we brought some of our ideas of gender and class from asia, the racism we receive and dish out is heavily influenced by western culture, especially american culture, since "race" is really a western concept and invention.
hooligan
05-26-2005, 09:00 AM
while i agree with your assertion that we brought some of our ideas of gender and class from asia, the racism we receive and dish out is heavily influenced by western culture, especially american culture, since "race" is really a western concept and invention.
I've even venture to say that "race" today is a very American concept.
the reason why people would be more critical towards her article versus the high school editoral is that mari's speech is directly talking about us and challenging asian men.
but, those are things that we brought with us from asia and our part of our culture. go back to asia, with none of the influences of white america, and you'll see this same sexism, racism towards different asian groups, homophobia, etc... in fact, its probably even worse than what you see here.ah i see.
stress from racism in america exacerbates existing sexism, racism and homophobia. like her essay says the men are at the top and take it out on women, gays and blacks and latinos. it's the same in the african-american movement. the women really get it along with gays because the men are the leaders and take their stress out on those lower than them.
on yw we've already ascertained that asians (esp chinese!) as a race are very racist because of confucian ways of thinking about order.
you make some good points about admissions quotas.
yoMAMA
05-26-2005, 09:13 AM
but, those are things that we brought with us from asia and our part of our culture. go back to asia, with none of the influences of white america, and you'll see this same sexism, racism towards different asian groups, homophobia, etc... in fact, its probably even worse than what you see here.
also, i think you are comparing western racism with asian [especially chinese]ethno-centricsm.
those are not analogous, apples to oranges.
deez nuts
05-26-2005, 09:16 AM
I also don't understand why people think she's a nutcase and in regards to CSB's post. I don't understand why people don't think these women can speak for the APIA community? If I married out would I lose my "legitimacy" too? Does she all of a sudden have to revoke her APIA status because she married someone who isn't APIA? If I married someone who was Latina/Black/White, does that mean I'm less APIA? I don't believe so, but convince me otherwise.
Also, bringing the argument to an ethnic level, if I didn't marry Chinese, would I still be considered Chinese? Or a voice for the Ccinese people? This is strange to me.
nah.
my statement was a reverberation of this thread:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=23334&highlight=validation
I'm reading A LOT of disagreement, but nothing substantial in regards to WHY you disagree. Is it just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Is there even analysis to back these thoughts up?
I disagree with her stance on affirmative action.
Denying college admission to a bright asian/white kid in order to admit not-so-bright black/latino kid is wrong.
Ignore the troll.
If yall want to talk about college admissions or affirmative action there are plenty of threads on that.
This thread is about Mari Matsuda's essay.
Don't derail it just because it makes you feel unmanly.
haplesshobo
05-26-2005, 09:53 AM
i reread mari's essay, and she didn't call it racism with regards to how we treat other asian groups. but, she still blames white society for how different asian american groups treat each other poorly out of a sense of displaced anger. as we all know, you see this same ethno-centrism in asia, outside the influence of any racism by white america. in fact, its probably a bigger issue with asians than asian americans.
and, she repeats that this displaced anger is also responsible for our sexism and homophobia, or at least, exacerbating it. but, again, the homophobia and sexism i've seen is much worse in asia, outside the influence of white america. i think she was totally wrong on that point where we are so discriminated against by white america, that we lash out against all others.
the gist of what i got from her article was that we should unite with different minority groups despite differences in income and class because we are all non-white. essentially, it is race that is the most important thing and which should unite us.
however, her relationship with a black professor shows that class is more important than race. and, in her examples where we united with other minority groups and get things done, its always because we were all the same class- students, farm workers, etc...
since it seems class is more important than race, then i don't see why we should unite with other groups if they aren't in the same socio-economic class as ours. its the people in the same class, not the race, with which you share a increasingly common identity and goals with. if it means we unite with middle class whites, then so be it.
yoMAMA
05-26-2005, 09:57 AM
i reread mari's essay, and she didn't call it racism with regards to how we treat other asian groups. but, she still blames white society for how different asian american groups treat each other poorly out of a sense of displaced anger. as we all know, you see this same ethno-centrism in asia, outside the influence of any racism by white america. in fact, its probably a bigger issue with asians than asian americans.
and, she repeats that this displaced anger is also responsible for our sexism and homophobia, or at least, exacerbating it. but, again, the homophobia and sexism i've seen is much worse in asia, outside the influence of white america. i think she was totally wrong on that point where we are so discriminated against by white america, that we lash out against all others.
the gist of what i got from her article was that we should unite with different minority groups despite differences in income and class because we are all non-white. essentially, it is race that is the most important thing and which should unite us.
however, her relationship with a black professor shows that class is more important than race. and, in her examples where we united with other minority groups and get things done, its always because we were all the same class- students, farm workers, etc...
since it seems class is more important than race, then i don't see why we should unite with other groups if they aren't in the same socio-economic class as ours. its the people in the same class, not the race, with which you share a increasingly common identity and goals with. if it means we unite with middle class whites, then so be it.
but class and race in america is closely correlated.
no, asians are racist against other races too because of confucian values. is your chinese mom or grandma as racist as mine? hehe
students and farm workers are not the same class, students are privileged and farm workers are not. you make an interesting point about class vs. race. so we should suddenly abandon race and align according to class? there is white (male) hegemony and i'm not ready to abandon the fact that white (males) currently run everything in the world.
haplesshobo
05-26-2005, 10:34 AM
I want to remember the times when Asian-Americans stood side-by-side with African-Americans, Latinos, and progressive whites to demand social justice. I want to remember the multi-racial ILWU (International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Workers' Union) that ended the plantation system in Hawaii. I want to remember the multi-racial sugar beet strikes in California that brought together Japanese, Filipino and Chicano workers to fulfill their dreams of a better life. I want to remember the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born that brought together progressive Okinawan, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and European immigrants to fight McCarthyism and deportation of political activists. I want to remember the San Francisco State College strike, and the Asian-American students who stood their ground in a multi-racial coalition to bring about ethnic studies and lasting changes in American academic life, changes that make it possible for me, as a scholar, to tell the truth as I see it.
.
I'm pointing out that when she talks about how we joined other minority groups before, notice that we joined precisely because we were part of the same socio-economic class, and not necessairly because we were united by a non-white color and race.
With the plantation strike in Hawaii, all the minorities were long shore men and warehouse workers, basically blue collar workers. With the beet strikes, the minorities were all farmer laborers. In the SF State College strike, they were all students. I think she's downplaying the class factor, and overemphasizing the race factor.
Two distinct socio-economic classes will have different agendas and goals and fears. Asians might want to focus on education for the universities and AP classes. Blacks might want to focus on education for remedial students and on the inner cities.
Society has limited resources. You're not going to make everybody happy. Sacrifices would have to be made. the issues she's advocating aren't going to really help us as much as it would help the other groups. nothing wrong with that, but realize that our interests might be more aligned with white america than the other minority groups. sure, white america could use us and we would use them as well.
and, yes, asians are ethno-centric towards other asians due to our confuscian heritage. however, she downplays it and seems to blame it on the white racism we face.
Mari Matsuda said in the essay: "We need affirmative action because there are still employers who see an Asian face and see a person unfit for a leadership position. In every field where we have attained a measure of success, we are underrepresented in the real power positions. And yet, we are in danger of being manipulated into opposing affirmative action by those who say affirmative action hurts Asian-Americans."
It is valid to piont out things in her essay that are not right and hurtful for asians.
You keep repeating that some white males currently run everything in the world.
It's very flattering to white males, but it is untrue.
You should try to work with white males, it will get you much better results.
Unfortunatly, some people forget chinese proverb:
He who cannot agree with his enemies is controlled by them.
hooligan
05-26-2005, 10:54 AM
Ignore the troll.
If yall want to talk about college admissions or affirmative action there are plenty of threads on that.
This thread is about Mari Matsuda's essay.
Don't derail it just because it makes you feel unmanly.
We need affirmative action because there are still employers who see an Asian face and see a person unfit for a leadership position. In every field where we have attained a measure of success, we are underrepresented in the real power positions. And yet, we are in danger of being manipulated into opposing affirmative action by those who say affirmative action hurts Asian-Americans.
What's really going on here? When university administrators have secret quotas to keep down Asian admissions, this is because Asians are seen as destroying the predominantly white character of the university. Under this mentality, we can't let in all those Asian over-achievers and maintain affirmative action for other minority groups. We can't do both because that will mean either that our universities lose their predominantly white character, or that we have to fund more and better universities. To either of those prospects, I say, "why not?" And I condemn the voices from our own community that are translating legitimate anger at ceilings on Asian admissions into unthinking opposition to affirmative action floors needed to fight racism.
In a period when rates of educational attainment for minorities and working class Americans are going down, in a period when America is lagging behind other developed nations in literacy and learning, I hope we will not be used to deny educational opportunities to the disadvantaged and to preserve success only for the privileged.
Another classic way to use the racial bourgeoisie is as America's punching bag. There is a lot of rage in this country, and for good reason. Our economy is in shambles. Persistent unemployment is creating new ghost towns, new soup kitchens, from coast to coast. The symptoms of decay--the drugs, the homelessness, the violence--are everywhere. From out of this decay comes a rage looking for a scapegoat, and a traditional American scapegoat is the oriental menace. From the Workingman's Party that organized white laborers around an anti-Chinese campaign in California in 1877, to the World War II internment fueled by resentment of the success of issei farmers, to the murder of Vincent Chin, to the terrorizing of Korean merchants in ghetto communities today, there is an unbroken line of poor and working Americans turning their anger and frustration into hatred of Asian-Americans.
Since everyone is pointing out Affirmative Action as something she's talking about, then let's analyze what she says.
1. She's talking about ANTI-Asian quotas, not quotas associated with Affirmative Action.
2. She's talking about the misguided ANGER at Affirmative Action, where we should be talking about the racism that fuels the quota and not Affirmative Action.
3. She's making a clear case for Affirmative Action in the workplace, not excluded to just education, which APIA by far are probably the most underrepresented.
I'm pointing out that when she talks about how we joined other minority groups before, notice that we joined precisely because we were part of the same socio-economic class, and not necessairly because we were united by a non-white color and race.
With the plantation strike in Hawaii, all the minorities were long shore men and warehouse workers, basically blue collar workers. With the beet strikes, the minorities were all farmer laborers. In the SF State College strike, they were all students. I think she's downplaying the class factor, and overemphasizing the race factor.
Two distinct socio-economic classes will have different agendas and goals and fears. Asians might want to focus on education for the universities and AP classes. Blacks might want to focus on education for remedial students and on the inner cities.
Society has limited resources. You're not going to make everybody happy. Sacrifices would have to be made. the issues she's advocating aren't going to really help us as much as it would help the other groups. nothing wrong with that, but realize that our interests might be more aligned with white america than the other minority groups. sure, white america could use us and we would use them as well.
and, yes, asians are ethno-centric towards other asians due to our confuscian heritage. however, she downplays it and seems to blame it on the white racism we face.
I find your post ironic because no one really talks about race as APIAs and yet you're going out on a limb to say she's over-emphasizing race. I think she's not talking about race enough and you have to remember that these are just "lens" to view the world. Yes, the world is more complicated, but oftentimes it's about money. Yeah? Living in a capitalistic society you've got a lot of talk about class, but race is more than often forgotten.
Mari's doing us all a favor. She's bringing race to the forefront and also talking about class and gender in the process. People who view this as over emphasizing race seems to neglect the fact that race is as important as the aforementioned two 'lens'. It's going to be class, gender and race (among OTHER things). But she's writing a speech to middle-class APIA law students. Of course, she's going to talk about race.
I don't understand why you feel so threatened that she does.
Actually, the SFSU strike was actually a stirke that utilized everyone in the community. You might find this odd but it's well written that professors, TAs, students, community members, janitors, staff, everyone was participating in the strike. If it wasn't that effective, there would NOT be an Asian American studies that we have today.
So, in other words, if it was just students they would have never given it to our brothers and sisters and why we have APIA studies today.
Society has limited resources. You're not going to make everybody happy. Sacrifices would have to be made. the issues she's advocating aren't going to really help us as much as it would help the other groups. nothing wrong with that, but realize that our interests might be more aligned with white america than the other minority groups. sure, white america could use us and we would use them as well.
and, yes, asians are ethno-centric towards other asians due to our confuscian heritage. however, she downplays it and seems to blame it on the white racism we face.You're not listening to me. Asians are very racist against other RACES like blacks and Latinos not just other ethnicities. Think about your mom or grandma.
Like I always say economics is not the only factor. All we talk about on YW is race (and mainly social misrepresention, no government representation, not economics!) and now you're saying it's all ecnomics? Keep playing the house nigger and nothing will change. Economic, political and social changes have to happen at the same time. Like Matsuda and hooligan say alot of important grassroots work among coalitions happened in the past that we don't commonly hear about to get where Asian America is today. I have 15 years of activist experience under my belt and I've read very widely about this stuff for 15 years.
hooligan
05-26-2005, 12:13 PM
You're not listening to me. Asians are very racist against other RACES like blacks and Latinos not just other ethnicities. Think about your mom or grandma.
Like I always say economics is not the only factor. All we talk about on YW is race (and mainly social misrepresention, no government representation, not economics!) and now you're saying it's all ecnomics? Keep playing the house nigger and nothing will change. Economic, political and social changes have to happen at the same time. Like Matsuda and hooligan say alot of important grassroots work among coalitions happened in the past that we don't commonly hear about to get where Asian America is today. I have 15 years of activist experience under my belt and I've read very widely about this stuff for 15 years.
Agreed, also, everything media plays on people of color are usually negative. You have race tensions and race riots all over LA, but when you go into those communities, everyone's like, yeah, so and so's got a problem, but not all of us. We're still cool. MSM makes us forget that long ago, not that racism didn't exist, but people of color, minorities, women, LGBT folk came together, saw eye to eye and fought against the same dominant forces in our culture.
We don't hear about how Japanese/Pilipino workers worked with Mexican workers. We don't hear how Latino/a and Black youth work together now to difuse racial tension. We don't hear how Korean immigrant works in K-town with Latino workers are working together to fight for labor justice. We don't hear about how all these communities came together to recognize and help Vincent Chin's mother and his case against the two steelworkers. It's something that the dominant powers that be want us to forget.
They focus on our differences, but not our similarities. I was kind of disappointed with YW because that also happened. We've got a lot of issues in our communities that we share, but we don't see that. We focus on all the wrong things, differences and such, but that's also important, but not as important as working together.
hapless, you may not oppress those below you. but join activist groups and you will see it happen 99% of the time. the groups that don't are into consensus but even that's tricky. rereading your posts looks like no one has come with any objections to the essay. or anything iris chang has written so their personal lives don't affect their scholarship. i can see men's feelings being hurt but that's for all the ir threads here.
returntosender
05-26-2005, 05:13 PM
[I also don't understand why people think she's a nutcase and in regards to CSB's post. I don't understand why people don't think these women can speak for the APIA community? If I married out would I lose my "legitimacy" too?]
How would a neo-nazi be regarded if his spouse was Jewish? Or Black? Or anything that was not aryan? Is he more believable, less believable, or as believable as someone who's committed to the same cause as his brethren? It's not that I'm against IR, it's that why is it that these advocates for AsianAmerican equality always happen to be married to anyone but Asian Americans? To me that's a HUGE contradiction. Anyone can talk the talk, but if you don't walk it then please excuse my skepticism. So, I agree with hobo in that she's probably talking about socio-economic class more so than race when she's talking about unity. But even unity on an economics level will give rise to dissent based on other differences-race, nationality, religion-etc.
[Does she all of a sudden have to revoke her APIA status because she married someone who isn't APIA? If I married someone who was Latina/Black/White, does that mean I'm less APIA? I don't believe so, but convince me otherwise. Maybe they need a lesson in race and gender theory. ]
It kinda depends on your goal doesn't it? An Asianwoman who only dates non-Asian wouldn't be very believable as an AsianAmerican advocate. Now I'm not saying that that is what Matsuda is. I like her for what she's doing, but I wonder if her her efforts would be better regarded if other variables were changed.
[Also, bringing the argument to an ethnic level, if I didn't marry Chinese, would I still be considered Chinese? Or a voice for the Chinese people? This is strange to me.]
Show me a lion that is a herbivore.
Mari Matsuda wrote this essay but doesn't claim to be Asian America's spokesperson. Her number one cause may be feminism or affirmative action. They are both against white male privilege like all of us here. But her essay still presents the best ideas for the movement. Iris Chang never claimed to be the spokesperson for the movement either. Her passions seemed to be Nanking and Vietnam. From YoMama's post (I highlighted a few interesting points):
First Couple of Affirmative Action
Two Georgetown professors put a human face on the policy debate
Living Proof: Husband and wife Charles Lawrence and Mari Matsuda decided to collaborate on a book on affirmative action when it became clear that their students lacked perspective on the issue. "We'd go into a coffee shop with a yellow legal pad," Matsuda explained. "We'd get into an argument and we'd leave the coffee shop with an outline."
by Frank Wu
Charles Lawrence and Mari Matsuda are two people who believe that "racism," "oppression," and "white supremacy" are, among other things, words that have meaning, phenomena that exist, subjects worth discussing. The two law professors at Georgetown University, a husband and wife team that has been as influential among scholars as they have been shy about public life, together recently published, We Won't Go Back: Making the Case for Affirmative Action (Houghton Mifflin). They have also started the difficult task suggested by their subtitle.
At their offices at the Georgetown University law school in downtown Washington, D.C., the two academics discussed their lives and their work.
Lawrence and Matsuda are as serious about their academic work as they are about raising a family. They have three children between them--one natural born, one Lawrence's by a previous marriage, and one adopted.
But in an age when professors can become celebrities by debating on radio talk shows and lecturing on the campus circuit, the couple have remained private people. Many of their colleagues in law teaching did not know they were married until recently.
Sharing the story of their meeting and courtship, they revealed themselves as the type of couple that do not hesitate to finish one another's sentences, in a comfortable flow of conversation back and forth between people and ideas.
Matsuda recalled, "I met him for the first time at a very small minority law professor meeting in Philadelphia in 1983, but he doesn't remember, so he met me for the first time at a conference in Los Angeles a few years later."
Lawrence interjected, "It's impossible for me to believe I didn't notice her in the crowd." When they began their relationship, and he insisted he couldn't remember her presence at their earlier introduction, she proved it to him with her notes from his lecture.
"At the time, there were only a handful of people of color in law teaching, and most of them were black," Matsuda said. "When I started, I was the only Asian woman teaching law, so when I went to [conferences] I hung out with the black people.
"We were political allies before we had a romance," she added, "and that's the best way to do it, in case anyone wants advice."
Now, they have become very visible as a team. But when they began their book, it was a struggle.
Originally, Matsuda wanted her husband to update an earlier book he had written about the Bakke case; she herself wanted nothing to do with the project. "For a long time, I didn't want to talk about affirmative action," she recalled. "People would ask me to talk about it, and I refused to do it. I realized I was conceding ground to the right and weak-kneed liberal defenders of affirmative action, who were always apologizing for it.
"This is a horrific debate," she explained. "The terms have gotten ugly. We've been yelled and screamed at. This is an issue that people don't use rational language when they talk about, it gets emotional, aggressive, racist."
Matsuda was persuaded, however, by the need for a different approach. "One audience that prompted us to write this book was our students," she said. "They didn't know the history. They had heard only the right-wing rhetoric, 'reverse discrimination,' 'stigma,' 'unqualified people' getting jobs. The rhetoric had eclipsed the history of the civil rights movement. Many of our Asian American students didn't realize Asian Americans had played a key role in [the civil rights movement], with nationwide organizing, coast to coast."
Lawrence added that he believes, "The kind of hopelessness that we think informs some of the conservatism and lack of activism among young people. You ask them, 'If you had the power, what changes would you make?' and they are very limited in their visions. A lot of this Generation X stuff has to do with buying into the idea that we can't do anything about it, it's all too big a problem." He lamented that student protesters today, "feel, like, well, we can go in and say we're concerned about this issue, but if the dean, the provost, the president says we can't do it, then we can't do it."
Both of them offered examples of the type of social change they hope to achieve. Matsuda said that the public today has forgotten that less than a generation ago, "There was a welfare rights movement led by poor people. It won significant concessions, though they didn't last. But in that short period, people standing up for their rights made a difference and kids got an education, they got health care--kids who weren't supposed to have gotten an education and health care."
Lawrence cited the Asian American Studies Center at the University of California at Los Angeles, which came about through a series of campus protests and involved the famous case of tenure denial to professor Don Nakanishi, who proved that the decision had been motivated by racial prejudice. "It showed that a fairly small, supposedly powerless group of people could achieve a very specific institutional change by saying, 'No, you cannot do this to us,'" Lawrence said. "Those kinds of disruptions of the system will be responded to."
In writing the book, the two argued endlessly about how best to resolve moral dilemmas and what would be the most persuasive prose. "This is exactly how we wrote the book," Matsuda explained. "We'd go into a coffee shop with a yellow legal pad. We'd say, 'What are the five most important things we have to say in chapter one?' And we'd get into an argument and we'd leave the coffee shop with an outline."
She offered an example of the problems they confronted. "Inevitably we'd figure out what the hard part was, we didn't want to finesse it, we wanted to work it out with our readers," Matsuda said. "For instance, the claim of Native Americans, that their claim is superior to that of all others, I have a lot of sympathy for that claim, but how do you work it out with a civil rights coalition, where you're trying to work with others?"
They also tried to address tensions among racial minorities, especially between African Americans and Asian Americans. Each offered an example of the reasoning they were offering to the different communities, in an effort to show them that they had common interests.
Lawrence remembered that when they were in Los Angeles, "Several rap artists, such as Ice Cube, were doing anti-immigrant and particularly anti-Asian lyrics in their work. The powerful part of their work was speaking to a felt and experienced subordination of black people, but it is important to be critical of the kinds of expression of subordination."
Lawrence argued that when African Americans used racial epithets to describe Asian Americans, they were "contributing to white supremacy, instead of resisting it, using epithets of Asians that had their origins in the same place as epithets of you, adopting white folks' ways of describing people."
His message to the rap artists? "You have to understand that you are doing, it isn't making [African Americans'] claim come before [Asian Americans'] claim, but it is my participation in your oppression, not just dividing us, but reinforcing my own oppression."
Matsuda pointed out that blacks and Chinese "were being lynched at the same time in this country, with the same images, the same dynamics: sex, danger, 'they're taking our jobs.'"
Matsuda offered an opinion on the desegregation of the San Francisco schools, including the prestigious Lowell High School, a subject they also address in the book. "If a Chinese grandmother or a black parent wants their child there, why do they want their child there? It is access to privilege." She said that even in the recent past, "Lowell High was the white school, set up so kids could go to the Ivys, to Stanford. We should talk about why there shouldn't be more than one school like that, but meanwhile, why is that a place that makes it attractive for Harvard to recruit?"
She suggested that "because kids have had a diverse experience that Harvard is trying to achieve, that is a thing that makes a Lowell applicant in some sense more qualified. If Lowell became 80 or 90 percent Chinese American, not Asian American but Chinese American, would Lowell still be the same place you are trying to get into, even apart from the question of whether you could get public support for it?"
As a consequence, Matsuda believes, "Even in the short term you have to think about this in a more complex way. You have to engage in a coalition to expand opportunities, increase opportunities for quality education, and so kids could get to go to school together."
Turning the statistics, laws, anecdotes, and personal experiences into a book was not easy for Lawrence and Matsuda. Past the publisher's deadline and the final pass at revision, Matsuda's parents came to town for a visit. The couple handed the grandparents the children and checked into a hotel across the street from the Georgetown law school. Shuttling back and forth between their hotel room and their law school offices, they did nothing but work around the clock to meet the new deadline.
Since publishing the book, the two have increased their profile, primarily through radio talk shows. On the air, they have learned that many people vehemently disagree with their viewpoints. At the same time, they have tried to empathize with individuals who feel threatened by affirmative action.
Lawrence said many of the hostile individuals "asked all of the questions you'd expect given the way the debate has been framed: 'Isn't this anti-merit?' 'Isn't it true that white people can't get jobs anymore?' 'Isn't it true that Asian Americans will do better without affirmative action programs?' Many people are extremely angry, calling less to ask a question than to vent."
Lawrence has tried to respond, "We want to empathize, trying to ask where the feeling is real, where the feeling has been directed is wrong. I think one of the things we try to say in the book a lot is that the feeling comes out of the way in today's economy. So many people are so close to the margin. With managed health care, we're all one sickness away from huge debt. The stock market is zooming way up, but people are in danger of being downsized and laid off. It's true that there are angry white males out there. We don't want to deny people's sense that there is something unfair going on. But what is it--no estate tax, cutting the capital gains tax--what is real unfairness here?"
As an example, Lawrence said that some "angry white males" believe "that all these women and minorities are getting jobs, but when you look at statistics, that's not so." Nonetheless, according to Lawrence, "The data shows African Americans don't lose jobs to Asian immigrants, but that's the story we are told in the way white supremacy works. It's blacks with whites on immigration, Asians with whites on affirmative action."
In contrast, Lawrence also has appeared on some radio shows aimed at a predominantly African American audience. On them, he has been asked very different questions. "One is the question, 'Isn't it true that affirmative action is just asking for handouts from the white man?' Sometimes it's posed as self-reliance, sometimes it's posed as, 'Don't we have to take power.'"
In response, Lawrence agrees that "affirmative action came about because people of color were demanding more radical changes, about community control and power. The people protesting a university building a medical center, with an all-white contractor, they were saying, 'We want a piece of the action.'"
Lawrence explains that he and Matsuda are trying to point out, "The current versions of affirmative action are a compromise. Historically, they really were an attempt to buy off people. Instead of giving you real power over curriculum, over who gets hired, over what research is done, over what gets built, they say, 'We'll just take in a few more students.'"
In We Won't Go Back, instead of defending affirmative action they are proposing a "return to community control." The book is already attracting strong opposition.
Lawrence Stratton, a conservative scholar who has written a book attacking affirmative action, submitted testimony to Congress criticizing Lawrence and Matsuda. Stratton reviewed their book for the Washington Times, beginning his analysis by declaring, "We should take our hats off to [Lawrence and Matsuda] for so clearly enunciating the Marxist basis for racial quotas." The reviewer went on to compare Lawrence and Matsuda to Hitler as well as Stalin, reading their work as advocating "violence" and "vengeance" toward "'white male privilege.'"
Another reviewer concluded, "The authors earnestly believe that attaining a freer and more just society will benefit everyone and justify the difficulty of a contentious transition. ... But not everyone will buy into their communal vision of justice, which will remain anathema to unreconstructed rugged American individualists."
Whatever else critics may say about their book, unlike some who might disagree with their prescriptions for progress, Lawrence and Matsuda obviously wrote their book with a sense of positive purpose. "This book is for those kids organizing against Prop. 209 in California, not people who will come ask stupid questions over and over again and again because they don't think there is racism in America," Matsuda said. "We had to remind ourselves who we were writing for."
Matsuda concludes on a pragmatic note. She admits her ideas for change "are not going to happen tomorrow in this country." She added, "But since I don't want to see it get a whole lot worse, I am committed to the project of making it a whole lot better."
Houghton Mifflin, the publishers of We Won't Go Back, and Chinese for Affirmative Action host a reception for Lawrence and Matsuda next Wednesday, June 4, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at Yank Sing restaurant on Battery Street in San Francisco. For information, call 415-274-6750. Oliver Wang is the founder of the Asian Community Online Network (www.acon.org/acon) and can be reached at: oli@uclink4.berkeley.edu. Larry Wong is associate editor of AsianWeek.
So, I agree with hobo in that she's probably talking about socio-economic class more so than race when she's talking about unity.These two are "the first couple of affirmative action". They're fighting for and with poor people. You mean progressive activists are in a class higher than the upper-middle and upper class that Asian Americans are supposedly in? Why are you guys out in the streets then like Glenn Omatsu, etc. Get out there. Now.
yoMAMA
05-26-2005, 06:23 PM
we have a vietnamese american member here [fossilfuel[] who's a 1L at georgetown.
maybe he took her classes this year.
;)
haplesshobo
05-26-2005, 07:15 PM
Returntosender,
I think I know why she's hated by the other forum. She's radical and has some ideas out there, such as laying the groundwork for reparations. But, I think the reason they hate her is cause of support for quotas limiting the number of Chinese students at Lowell High School, the nationally renowned magnet school in SF.
To understand the context, Chinese Americans needed to score a higher minimum average than whites and other asian groups to gain admittance. Basically, there were racial quotas against Chinese at this school which permitted no more than 40% of the students could be chinese. Otherwise, on test scores alone, the student population would have been mostly Chinese.
In her book defending affirmative action, she's basically telling the Chinese students that its for the greater good that they are being shut out of Lowell. That the integration of Lowell HS was of paramount social importance, more important than them as indiviiduals or education. Sounds eeirly similar to other manifestos I heard where the group was more important than the individual, so you could deny individual rights. (Although, she does walk the walk since she's sending her own children to poor public schools even as other professional parents, both black and white, take their own children. To her, the agenda is more important, than her children's education).
Personally, I find her attitude a little condescending where she says "because kids have had a diverse experience that Harvard is trying to achieve, that is a thing that makes a Lowell applicant in some sense more qualified. If Lowell became 80 or 90 percent Chinese American, not Asian American but Chinese American, would Lowell still be the same place you are trying to get into, even apart from the question of whether you could get public support for it?"
Reread that again. Doesn't that strike you as wrong on so many levels. I don't see the distinction why racial quotas specifially aimed at Chinese students in high school is acceptable, but why the same quoatas applied at the university level is somehow 'racist anti-asian." I don't see where or how she drew the line.
And, she does diminish the role of class in favor of race. There’s this common argument that always comes up in affirmative action debates, they note, the argument that there is something unfair about a policy that gives a preference to the child of a successful African American neurosurgeon from Pittsburgh over a coal miner’s son from Appalachia. "All this talk about class," Lawrence and Matsuda protest in exasperation, all "the[se] endless citings of the ‘poor white male from Appalachia’, cannot avoid the reality of race and gender privilege." For them, the bottom line is "the statistical reality of extraordinary white male advantage" and that’s enough to put the white male from Appalachia in his place.
The more I reread the initial essay, the more I disagree with its vision. Am I supposed to agree with her simply because she's Asian American?
Um, she's at UCLA law school.
Uh, hapless, you know it had nothing to do with her being Asian American.
That's the whole affirmative action debate of class vs. race that we've discussed in other threads. Maybe you should start another one on whether or not aff ac should be based on class vs. race. Most progressives still think like Matsuda and husband that it should still be based on race. Jesse Jackson, Asian Americans (and I) think it should change to class. College (and Lowell High School) admissions should be based on class not race. For Asian Americans, maybe there should be a special clause for merit?
(That was the only part I didn't agree with in the essay. The part about college admissions. The rest rocks!)
Critical race theory is in line with class-based affirmative action. In the essay, she writes from the critical race theory point of view not the affirmative action point of view (except the part about admissions). Both critical race theory and class-based affirmative action oppose white male hegemony.
The problem with class-based movements (like the union movement) like race-based movements are their histories of sexism. Critical race theory on the other hand is very much linked with feminism.
hooligan
05-27-2005, 09:47 AM
Also, criticism to class and race based movements is that their usually exclusive of each other. One focuses on one more when both should be weighed equally.
Returntosender,
I think I know why she's hated by the other forum. She's radical and has some ideas out there, such as laying the groundwork for reparations. But, I think the reason they hate her is cause of support for quotas limiting the number of Chinese students at Lowell High School, the nationally renowned magnet school in SF.
To understand the context, Chinese Americans needed to score a higher minimum average than whites and other asian groups to gain admittance. Basically, there were racial quotas against Chinese at this school which permitted no more than 40% of the students could be chinese. Otherwise, on test scores alone, the student population would have been mostly Chinese.
In her book defending affirmative action, she's basically telling the Chinese students that its for the greater good that they are being shut out of Lowell. That the integration of Lowell HS was of paramount social importance, more important than them as indiviiduals or education. Sounds eeirly similar to other manifestos I heard where the group was more important than the individual, so you could deny individual rights. (Although, she does walk the walk since she's sending her own children to poor public schools even as other professional parents, both black and white, take their own children. To her, the agenda is more important, than her children's education).
Personally, I find her attitude a little condescending where she says "because kids have had a diverse experience that Harvard is trying to achieve, that is a thing that makes a Lowell applicant in some sense more qualified. If Lowell became 80 or 90 percent Chinese American, not Asian American but Chinese American, would Lowell still be the same place you are trying to get into, even apart from the question of whether you could get public support for it?"
Reread that again. Doesn't that strike you as wrong on so many levels. I don't see the distinction why racial quotas specifially aimed at Chinese students in high school is acceptable, but why the same quoatas applied at the university level is somehow 'racist anti-asian." I don't see where or how she drew the line.
And, she does diminish the role of class in favor of race. There’s this common argument that always comes up in affirmative action debates, they note, the argument that there is something unfair about a policy that gives a preference to the child of a successful African American neurosurgeon from Pittsburgh over a coal miner’s son from Appalachia. "All this talk about class," Lawrence and Matsuda protest in exasperation, all "the[se] endless citings of the ‘poor white male from Appalachia’, cannot avoid the reality of race and gender privilege." For them, the bottom line is "the statistical reality of extraordinary white male advantage" and that’s enough to put the white male from Appalachia in his place.
The more I reread the initial essay, the more I disagree with its vision. Am I supposed to agree with her simply because she's Asian American?
I call shenanigans until you provide me with a link. I remember there was so much hate on Lucy Liu until someone pulled up a quote from her actual interview where she didn't put down APIA males, rather she said she wouldn't date white asiaphiles. So, provide a link please.
Actually, to her 2nd to last paragraph, she makes an excellent point. Class is important, but racism plays a huge role in our lives. Many people want to become color-blind while racism still runs rampant. Remember, the audience is as important as the message Hapless, you're missing the context.
Until proven otherwise, she specifically says that quotas are bad in Affirmative Action, yet you're connecting her to quotas again? Please back up your claim.
OK, found it, let's play "put quotes into context" :
Matsuda offered an opinion on the desegregation of the San Francisco schools, including the prestigious Lowell High School, a subject they also address in the book. "If a Chinese grandmother or a black parent wants their child there, why do they want their child there? It is access to privilege." She said that even in the recent past, "Lowell High was the white school, set up so kids could go to the Ivys, to Stanford. We should talk about why there shouldn't be more than one school like that, but meanwhile, why is that a place that makes it attractive for Harvard to recruit?"
She suggested that "because kids have had a diverse experience that Harvard is trying to achieve, that is a thing that makes a Lowell applicant in some sense more qualified. If Lowell became 80 or 90 percent Chinese American, not Asian American but Chinese American, would Lowell still be the same place you are trying to get into, even apart from the question of whether you could get public support for it?"
I do not find quotas to be what she's talking about, I see that she's addressing the fact that the school cannot be 80/90 percent. I believe she's talking about recreating white hegemony at these schools and instead of using whites, we're using APIAs, more specifically Chinese American. She's reflecting on the same theme of the speech. We're being used to create and justify the structures of racism and privelege.
She also addresses the fact that there is institutional racism involved. She says that at Lowell, it appears that Lowell represents accress to this white privelege, while good for APIAs really doesn't change the structures of why Lowell continues to be a place for ivy leagues to recruit. Rather, she questions if this school became almost ALL Chinese American, would this school still get the necessary funding and support from the places where institutional racism breed? I believe she's answering NO.
Her message resonates almost clearly with what I believe in.
Um, she's at UCLA law school.
Uh, hapless, you know it had nothing to do with her being Asian American.
That's the whole affirmative action debate of class vs. race that we've discussed in other threads. Maybe you should start another one on whether or not aff ac should be based on class vs. race. Most progressives still think like Matsuda and husband that it should still be based on race. Jesse Jackson, Asian Americans (and I) think it should change to class. College (and Lowell High School) admissions should be based on class not race. For Asian Americans, maybe there should be a special clause for merit?
(That was the only part I didn't agree with in the essay. The part about college admissions. The rest rocks!)
Critical race theory is in line with class-based affirmative action. In the essay, she writes from the critical race theory point of view not the affirmative action point of view (except the part about admissions). Both critical race theory and class-based affirmative action oppose white male hegemony.
That's funny because the college admissions part makes a lot of sense to me.
[I also don't understand why people think she's a nutcase and in regards to CSB's post. I don't understand why people don't think these women can speak for the APIA community? If I married out would I lose my "legitimacy" too?]
How would a neo-nazi be regarded if his spouse was Jewish? Or Black? Or anything that was not aryan? Is he more believable, less believable, or as believable as someone who's committed to the same cause as his brethren? It's not that I'm against IR, it's that why is it that these advocates for AsianAmerican equality always happen to be married to anyone but Asian Americans? To me that's a HUGE contradiction. Anyone can talk the talk, but if you don't walk it then please excuse my skepticism. So, I agree with hobo in that she's probably talking about socio-economic class more so than race when she's talking about unity. But even unity on an economics level will give rise to dissent based on other differences-race, nationality, religion-etc.
[Does she all of a sudden have to revoke her APIA status because she married someone who isn't APIA? If I married someone who was Latina/Black/White, does that mean I'm less APIA? I don't believe so, but convince me otherwise. Maybe they need a lesson in race and gender theory. ]
It kinda depends on your goal doesn't it? An Asianwoman who only dates non-Asian wouldn't be very believable as an AsianAmerican advocate. Now I'm not saying that that is what Matsuda is. I like her for what she's doing, but I wonder if her her efforts would be better regarded if other variables were changed.
[Also, bringing the argument to an ethnic level, if I didn't marry Chinese, would I still be considered Chinese? Or a voice for the Chinese people? This is strange to me.]
Show me a lion that is a herbivore.
I agree, BUT, tell me why this happens to women more than men?
I find it ironic and probably a little predictable that all of a sudden this thread has derailed from the speech into questioning Mari on three things:
1. Her personal life
2. Her stance on Affirmative Action and
3. Her so-called Communist roots
We better keep it in context or this thread might turn into the whole "Saving Face" one.
Stick to the essay and the ideas in the essay.
90% of it resonates with what we discuss every day here. The model minority myth and how it hurts us and all POC. White male hegemony and how we can't dismantle it without a broad approach like we discuss every day: through media, history, education, political boycotts and campaigns, getting involved in activism. The least discussed is how we can make more money. It seems to be implicit that we'll make money.
Critical theory (not just critical race theory) is also very sympathetic to women and every group imaginable. I'm sure the unnamed forum is male-dominated because most people don't notice these things. So women choose between the possibility of having a voice with critical theory movements and no possibility of having a voice in race-based movements based on what's happened in the past. Maybe that will change.
So women have to choose between race and gender. We have racist gender-equality movements and sexist race-based movements. It's always a juggling act. The same way women choose between career and family and usually juggle the two. It can never be evenly balanced. One will be more important than the other just like career or family. Men never have to choose race or gender, career or family. They lead movements and families. And in both they will find women to be supportive and take care of them.
SunWuKong
05-27-2005, 12:32 PM
Wow, YW's come a long way since 2002 when our female role models were: mom, britney spears, anna nicole smith, alicia keys, superwoman, kristen kreuk, the powerpuff girls, etc. oh and mari matsuda in the first post by kasie lee:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=638&highlight=matsuda
hahhah hey come now! i also mentioned the Soong sisters and Ding Ling!
hooligan
05-27-2005, 12:50 PM
So women have to choose between race and gender. We have racist gender-equality movements and sexist race-based movements. It's always a juggling act. The same way women choose between career and family and usually juggle the two. It can never be evenly balanced. One will be more important than the other just like career or family. Men never have to choose race or gender, career or family. They lead movements and families. And in both they will find women to be supportive and take care of them.
It's really difficult to find that praxis between theory and action, and if you're a minority in a minority, whether that means LGBT and a race/gender or what have you, it's hard to see where your stances blend with your race, gender or sexual orientation.
Undoubtedly men have a much more easier time negotiating this, but I believe as men of color, we have a much more complicated sphere to negotiate than men of the dominant sphere.
hahhah hey come now! i also mentioned the Soong sisters and Ding Ling!
LOL
SunWuKong
05-27-2005, 12:55 PM
anyway, good discussion so far, people! remember to keep it intelligent and attack the issue instead of each other.
i agree with Mari Matsuda. i don't think she has labeled white people as some common enemy, but she pinpointed many ways that the US's white-controlled society has mistreated Asian Americans. my personal opinion is that we, as Asian Americans, should side with causes that we think are just and right, regardless of whether the white, black or Latino communities agree with us or not.
deez nuts
05-27-2005, 01:58 PM
hahhah hey come now! i also mentioned the Soong sisters and Ding Ling!
mother is still my number one role model.
SunWuKong
05-28-2005, 10:09 PM
ok, no personal attacks!
that goes for everyone.
haplesshobo
05-29-2005, 04:17 PM
I'm looking deeper into her work, to get an understanding of the essay in the context of her larger views on affirmative action and race. I must say that I am disappointed that she was the first asian american to get tenure at a law school. Is that a personal attack?
So have you researched her views on affirmative action and race? What did you learn? I haven't because I like what she had to say.
haplesshobo
06-03-2005, 05:38 AM
well, i understand why the other people have poor impressions of her. i wouldn't call her a nutcase, but i found some of her ideas absurd and which i think will end up being counterproductive for the asian community. its kinda disappointing to read her stuff because i was expecting the first asian american to get tenure at a law school to be so brilliant that they couldn't shut her out, but i find her arguments unconvincing at best. there really isn't a chain of logic which inenvitably convinces the layreader, nor an example that instantly clarifies and crystalizes the issue like the poor, appalachian coalminer's son from west virgina.
to start off, i just question how much she really knows about the whole asian culture. remember in the essay, how she blamed our homophobia, racism, etc.. on the white culture. my grandma is distrustful of anybody who's not from the same region of china as she is and this thinking was created long before she immigrated to america. so, if she saw a black person and blacks weren't from her region, she'd be what you call racist. yet, mari ignores that some of our negative attitudes are really more influenced by our asian culture then due to a backlash against white power.
well, its funny, but she does this again on the issue of education. in her book 'we won't go back: making the case for affirmative action", on page 198, she writes 'immigrant parents who fear racism teach their children that academic achievement is the key to survival.' she casts our entire emphasis on education on the racism we face in white america which i think is absurd. go back to asia, where there's none of this white opression, and there's even more emphasis on education and the students study even harder than we do here in america. its part of our confusician heritage to embrace education.
and, yes, she does support racial quoatas at lowell high school which kept the number of chinese students capped at 40%. again, i fail to understand why quotas were somehow racist at the college level but acceptable at the high school level. She writes "the parsimonous language of 'quota' cannot begin to do justice to their lives.' (pg 7, ibid) Call it what you will but when 30 percent of the high school students in SF are chinese, and you have a magnet school like Lowell that attracts the best, you're going to end up with a quota when you cap the number of chinese students at 40% because without it, the numbers would be much higher. She argues that this is a 'reasonable price to meet the broader goals of the civil rights coalition' (179, ibid) and that its for the 'common good' (201, ibid).
let's examine the justifications she used to support racial quotas:
"Lowell High was the white school, set up so kids could go to the Ivys, to Stanford."
Actually, Lowell's reputation is that its the top feeder school in the state of CA to the UC System. It sends most of its students into UC system, where 'whites are a minority at Berkely.' (207, ibid) So unless you want to argue that the UCs are about access to white privilge, that seems like a moot point.
She suggested that "because kids have had a diverse experience that Harvard is trying to achieve, that is a thing that makes a Lowell applicant in some sense more qualified. If Lowell became 80 or 90 percent Chinese American, not Asian American but Chinese American, would Lowell still be the same place you are trying to get into, even apart from the question of whether you could get public support for it?"
Mari is arguing two separate things:
1) diverse campus somehow makes the students better qualified, and its this diversity that attracts the ivy league schools.
2) a school that's 90% chinese would get its funding slashed
1) i don't buy that its the diversity of the school that attracts the ivy league schools. by that logic, the inner city schools that are split between the blacks and latinos in LA should attract the same ivy league schools because the school is so diverse. it doesn't as we all know its all about the quality of the school and the students that makes Lowell so special. The elite colleges like Lowell students not because its diverse, but because its easiest way to find the best students, as they are all grouped together at this school. The ivy league schools know if a student can thrive at Lowell, the student can also handle the pressure of an ivy league education. And, I'd also point out that these same students can also interact outside the classroom in SF, one of the most diverse cities in america.
2) i don't buy that either especially as matsuda points out not every kid gets into lowell. the stupid, mediocre, average, merely smart students can't get in either. but, do their parents then turn around and slash funding? No. their children don't get the benefits of a lowell education, yet they still support the school. Plus, given the number of chinese community in SF, the Chinese would coalesce to potentially fight off these cuts.
I'd also question whether or not lowell gets any more funding than any other school in the same school district. the only info i could find was that SF spends millions of dollars to enforce this racial diversity to keep schools like Lowell diverse. If they stopped doing it and allowed it to become more chinese, they'd be saving millions of dollars that could go to the schools. Stuvesysant in NYC is also one of the premier magnet elite high schools and its retained it support despite no similar racial quotas or caps.
I'll finish this later on, and bring in her other theories in the book to show the context of the initial essay.
hooligan
06-03-2005, 07:16 AM
to start off, i just question how much she really knows about the whole asian culture. remember in the essay, how she blamed our homophobia, racism, etc.. on the white culture. my grandma is distrustful of anybody who's not from the same region of china as she is and this thinking was created long before she immigrated to america. so, if she saw a black person and blacks weren't from her region, she'd be what you call racist. yet, mari ignores that some of our negative attitudes are really more influenced by our asian culture then due to a backlash against white power.
What exactly did you read? Are you sure that's what she says? Cite the page number please and the text.
let's examine the justifications she used to support racial quotas:
"Lowell High was the white school, set up so kids could go to the Ivys, to Stanford."
Actually, Lowell's reputation is that its the top feeder school in the state of CA to the UC System. It sends most of its students into UC system, where 'whites are a minority at Berkely.' (207, ibid) So unless you want to argue that the UCs are about access to white privilge, that seems like a moot point.
She suggested that "because kids have had a diverse experience that Harvard is trying to achieve, that is a thing that makes a Lowell applicant in some sense more qualified. If Lowell became 80 or 90 percent Chinese American, not Asian American but Chinese American, would Lowell still be the same place you are trying to get into, even apart from the question of whether you could get public support for it?"
re: See what I wrote in response to this in a previous post.
Mari is arguing two separate things:
1) diverse campus somehow makes the students better qualified, and its this diversity that attracts the ivy league schools.
2) a school that's 90% chinese would get its funding slashed
1) i don't buy that its the diversity of the school that attracts the ivy league schools. by that logic, the inner city schools that are split between the blacks and latinos in LA should attract the same ivy league schools because the school is so diverse. it doesn't as we all know its all about the quality of the school and the students that makes Lowell so special. The elite colleges like Lowell students not because its diverse, but because its easiest way to find the best students, as they are all grouped together at this school. The ivy league schools know if a student can thrive at Lowell, the student can also handle the pressure of an ivy league education. And, I'd also point out that these same students can also interact outside the classroom in SF, one of the most diverse cities in america.
2) i don't buy that either especially as matsuda points out not every kid gets into lowell. the stupid, mediocre, average, merely smart students can't get in either. but, do their parents then turn around and slash funding? No. their children don't get the benefits of a lowell education, yet they still support the school. Plus, given the number of chinese community in SF, the Chinese would coalesce to potentially fight off these cuts.
1. She's questioning the LACK of diversity. What experience do you have with diversity. I find that reducing the argument into this binary is simply missing the larger picture. You're really setting up a strawman argument. Lack of diversity = more kids from inner-city schools? You're neglecting funding and also preparation that these students receive.
2. Not the parents, but the school administrators. If magnet schools are going to be all Chinese, then more or less likely they people/adminstrators will slash the funding. They will also NOT reflect the community that Lowell serves. Do you even know how the school system works? While some money comes from the federal government MOST public schools get funding based on the property tax of the area. If said public school does not reflect that community, I'm sure that the community will NOT fund it. She's questioning the viability for this school to exist if it was all Chinese.
3. Do you even remember the 70s. Colleges and universities at one point and time were all male and white. Don't talk about not having white privelege unless you choose to discuss this.
I noted something
and, yes, she does support racial quoatas at lowell high school which kept the number of chinese students capped at 40%. again, i fail to understand why quotas were somehow racist at the college level but acceptable at the high school level. She writes "the parsimonous language of 'quota' cannot begin to do justice to their lives.' (pg 7, ibid) Call it what you will but when 30 percent of the high school students in SF are chinese, and you have a magnet school like Lowell that attracts the best, you're going to end up with a quota when you cap the number of chinese students at 40% because without it, the numbers would be much higher. She argues that this is a 'reasonable price to meet the broader goals of the civil rights coalition' (179, ibid) and that its for the 'common good' (201, ibid).
On what page does this happen?
I think the majority of this comments are disparaging. What I see is that whenever someone questions those improvements we've made in the community and talk about remaking those structures of white privelege that somehow APIAs coopted, we're fearful of giving them up. Lowell is great and all, but I think it's strange how we can sit around and support Chinese and Chinese AMerican students going to this and getting into colleges, but we canno