Tucker Carlson owns an Asian American tool

Tucker Carlson owns an Asian American tool. No, not the kind of tool that you put in a toolbox, but the kind that you invite on your show when you’re a cable news host and you’re looking on someone easy to beat on. Don’t let that Harvard degree fool you either. Getting a degree from Harvard (evidently) doesn’t mean that you understand basic logic.

Why do Asian American liberals even try to defend indefensible racist positions? This Jay Chen character can’t even answer a direct question, which is why he rambles on about irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with affirmative action. It’s a sad thing to realize that Asian America’s biggest allies in the media come from Fox News.

82 thoughts on “Tucker Carlson owns an Asian American tool

  1. lol SJW claims “holistic view without regards to race” but then immediately goes on about history of racism against Blacks and Latinos and ignores the anti-Chinese massacres.

    And are you, bigWOWO, seriously posting Fox talking points propaganda? Calling it journalism would be an insult to democratic institutions. They’re using Asians as “tools” to further a wedge between people of color by perpetuating the model minority myth – which SJWs are also guilty of.

    Asians who are so desperate to give money to racist Ivy schools that don’t want them are also tools. This aspect of Asian culture is sickening.

  2. …. perpetuating the model minority myth – which SJWs are also guilty of. -aardvark.
    The Asian SJWs believe that we should abandon merit-based admittance to top schools in favor of a system that is non-specific in criteria and controlled by the white majority — and then turn around and accuse us of drinking from the model-minority kool-aid when we oppose them. This is just mind boggling.

  3. For one thing, the hypocrisy of the SJWs to “disaggregate” data calls upon East Asians to be separate from SE Asians and only resort to HOUSEHOLD incomes doesn’t disaggregate further the income disparities WITHIN East Asian households and treat all East Asians the same. Further, the SJW disaggregation scheme also excludes their precious URM data and only factor in race considerations for “holistic review.” This is completely disingenuous.

    The right-wingnuts use Asian tools to espouse “model minorities” in order to avoid any social responsibilities and programs that would help other impoverished minorities by pushing some bootstrap “personal responsibility” line; whereas the SJWs use Asian tools to espouse “model minorities” in order to avoid any social responsibilities and programs that would help other impoverished minorities by pushing expedient political agendas for URM votes (since they never espouse giving Muslim students more seats because Muslims are also “model minorities” in some sense) but SJWs never push programs that would actually help them at the K-12 levels.

    I actually agree with James Lamb-Fang that housing equality and fair access to education resources does help, but what lying politician will actually ask for the “difficult” thing for people to do the hard work?

    Either way, Asians are just used as scapegoats as usual. Any of them who doesn’t see it is brainwashed or on the payroll of some organization to push agendas to the detriment of Asian Americans for their own personal profit.

  4. My favorite part was where Mr. Chen says something like, “But affirmative action benefits Asians too!” and Tucker bursts out laughing. You can tell Mr. Chen really wants to believe it, but he KNOWS he’s lying to himself.

    Aardvark:

    And are you, bigWOWO, seriously posting Fox talking points propaganda? Calling it journalism would be an insult to democratic institutions.

    Is there anything in the clip that Tucker says that isn’t true? I don’t know if it’s journalism, but what he says is 100% true.

  5. @bigWOWO,

    I’ll have to go and re-watch it and jot down the details, but I’m very skeptical of anything from Fox.

    However, I do agree that affirmative ACTION and not affirmative DISCRIMINATION does benefit Asian Americans. Because despite the academic achievements, the work force is another area where discrimination is actively practiced and the notorious bamboo ceiling exists for Asians.

    Despite the amount of Ivy league Asians, not many are corporate board members or Fortune 500 CEOs, going by the SJW functional quota system.

  6. We’re only talking about college admissions, not employment. I don’t think you’ll find a major company today that says “affirmative action.” They only say “diversity.” “Affirmative action” only applies to college admissions.

    I like this:

    http://heatst.com/culture-wars/obama-slams-political-correctness-says-stop-going-around-looking-for-insults/

    “If somebody says, ‘You know what, I’m not sure affirmative action is the right way to solve racial problems in this country,’ and somebody’s immediately accused of being racist, well, then I think you have a point,” he added after being asked whether he agrees with President-elect Trump that political correctness has gone too far.

    Obama went on to offer some advice: “My advice to progressives like myself, and this is advice I give my own daughters, who are about to head off to college, is don’t go around just looking for insults. You’re tough. If somebody says something you don’t agree with, just engage them on their ideas.”

  7. I think Jay Chen is an undercover asian male activist. He was doing the interview to raise awareness. It’s painful to watch him defend affirmative action. He’s willing to sacrifice his dignity for the greater good of asians. He would have scored 300 on SAT with his kind of logic. Jay is like Colbert.
    Byron, when will you let me sign up to keep my username man ? I feel like I’m not welcome here anymore.

  8. Does anybody else sort of imagine Kyrie as the type of guy who walks around with a sneer pulling his face permanently to one side?

    LMAO!

  9. @bigWOWO,

    Fine. You can use the popular lexicon, but there’s no denying that historically affirmative action is a concept used for both schools and work place.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

    As far nitpicking Tucker Carlson’s self-contradictions and exaggeration of talking points, I’ve actually went thru the whole video and compiled by thoughts:

    @2:10 – not understanding the true intention of affirmative action, but resorts to a hyperbole of affirmative discrimination and confusing the two issues. It’s not “penalizing” based on skin color, but the original intention of affirmative action is to give a leg up on EQUALLY QUALIFIED candidates.

    @3:26 – acknowledges race is not the only criteria for admissions, but then goes on to consider only SAT scores and says race is the only distinguishing criteria. So Tucker Carlson believes in some sort of “holistic review” but heavily bias towards SAT scores, this is a matter of opinion on what “qualifies” someone based solely on test scores or other achievements, but does not give any numerical assignments to those achievements.

    @4:20 – no data to backup the claims about Asian American poverty and “disaggregating” the populations and “punishing the weakest.” I would argue there is indeed significant poverty with Asian Americans, but at the same time there are social and family resources Asian American kids can access which others cannot.

    @5:30 – exactly the current problem with Ivy nebulous admissions that have no data. But neither does Tucker Carlson have the data of 20% flat Asian admissions/application. How many Asian students actually applied vs accepted? We can all agree to make these data public and transparent.

    @6:11 – have no basis to judge by which doubling applicants means doubling admissions. No data on whether other applicants’ “competitiveness” has also gone up. Again, need more data to make these claims.

    @6:30 – I’ve not looked up the person Tucker Carlson referenced, but would also have to question the consultant’s background and political leanings.

    @6:45 – the Trump level of rhetoric and exaggerating the facts. It’s hyperbole and “editorial” but you’d never see this style of accusation on other “more respectable” networks.

    @7:30 – simply gloss over the Asian international students applicants. This is where I’d actually encourage Tucker Carlson to investigate if Harvard/Ivy schools discriminate against Asians by lumping foreign and US Asian applicants into the same pool or not.

    @7:45 – previously used only 1 consultant who made the claim, but exaggerated to many and appeal to masses logical fallacy.

    @8:08 – LOLZ, Jay Chen criticizes Tucker Carlson for making anecdotal comments but then immediately brings up his own anecdotal experiences. James Lamb-Fang got nothing on Jay Chen’s circuitous logic fallacies.

    @9:55 – I’d like to see the data Tucker Carlson makes that Asian girls have harder time getting in vs Asian boys.

    @10:30 – makes the exaggerated comment again that “not letting somebody into college” which is false to the argument at hand about Ivy school discrimination. Asian kids certainly have other options, smarter options like public schools.

    @11:05 – contradicts his own statements that there is racial discrimination in USofA but ignores it in lieu of only test scores as sole measurements of “meritocracy.” Ignores Jay Chen’s comments about legacies and other crony capitalism admissions practices and hones in on race because it’s easier to target impoverish demographics than go after the rich white legacy students.

    @11:45 – completely “whitewashes” the current social malaise of privilege and race in USofA. To say that “children is innocent” of slavery today also ignores the social advantages conferred to white kids as descendants that benefited from social inequities.

  10. @Kyrie,

    Both right-wingnuts and SJWs have manipulated people of color for their own political agendas. Jay Chen is simply trying to gain points with his SJW puppet masters.

  11. Sooner or later, you will notice that all of these products of American victims studies in universities and oppression fan-clubs all talk the same.

    When confronted with the deficiencies and inconsistencies in their OWN positions, the first thing they will do is point at a bogeyman and that accuse it of racism, sexism, homophobia, because this justifies their own failures.

    This is not an accident. This is a consistent product of the indoctrination they underwent.

  12. Sooner or later, you will notice that all of these products of American victims studies in universities and oppression fan-clubs all talk the same. – Sengge Rinchen
    These SJWs all kinda talk the same and write the same points but have you noticed how they NEVER draw the line and come in to defend each other. In this case, just look at the youtube comments. I don’t think I read a single comment that came to Chen’s defense. There are well over a thousand comments. Instead of copying each other’s thoughts and writing their own version and why not band together and duke it out intellectually with the masses? What better way to bring out the unicorn “silent majority” that sees things their (ultra-leftie) way?
    Specifically with Asian SJWs, is it possible that they are still hesitant to to be seen as an Asian supporting a fellow Asian who has a dispute with one or more white persons (like in early grade school)?

  13. lol You won’t dare to say “Merry Christmas” to progressives?

    Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Festivus, Happy New Year to all!

  14. The insinuation Jay Chen made that Asians don’t experience police brutality or deportations was disgusting. Even so, the proper way to address those issues isn’t with racial quotas at schools. The proper way to address them is to stop them directly. The historical “legacy of racism” argument was also flawed because African immigrants whose ancestors never experienced slavery benefit from affirmative action when applying to top schools, even more so than Blacks whose ancestors were slaves.

  15. @Kiwi,

    Definitely agree with what you wrote about anti-Asian violence in USofA. In fact, the SJWs completely neglect Asian American issues unless it’s their specific “disaggregated” URM demographics.

    The historical “legacy of racism” argument was also flawed because African immigrants whose ancestors never experienced slavery benefit from affirmative action when applying to top schools, even more so than Blacks whose ancestors were slaves.

    This is exactly why affirmative ACTION (not affirmative DISCRIMINATION) is needed. Affirmative action as originally intended was to give a slight preference to equally qualified applicants where “historical” and “disadvantaged” backgrounds are given consideration.

    However, in practice, it’s been about social engineering without any transparency and public scrutiny of institutions that take public tax dollars. And that’s where the problem lies with affirmative discrimination as practiced by the Ivy Schools and workplace.

    Also, to say one group didn’t have ancestors who experienced slavery/discrimination vs another also discounts the extreme sacrifices the African immigrant kids’ parents had to make for them to come to USofA. Meanwhile, natural born citizens has other advantages that immigrants didn’t have. Which is why some level of “holistic review” is needed; but the data and points assigned should be made transparent to quelch any notions of bias in the court of public opinion.

  16. Sounds good in theory, but how exactly is that supposed to work when applied? The problem of trying to design something that is fair, is that not everyone agrees on what is fair and over time it is a moving target. It doesn’t matter how transparent and holistic it is, your not going to be able to design a system to hit a target that is fuzzy and moving.

  17. The only thing that’s “fair” in the world of identity politics is whatever benefits your own group. This is why Asian demands for equal treatment are routinely vilified as complicity in White supremacy or complicity in anti-Blackness while demands for special treatment by Blacks or any other underrepresented minority are lauded by SJWs.

  18. ^^^

    To clarify, whereas Blacks have to a significant extent been embraced by liberals, Asians continue to be demonized as an outside threat to the establishment.

    This goes as far back as the New Deal era, when the Democratic Party embraced Black voters. W.E.B. Du Bois said FDR “gave the American Negro a kind of recognition in political life which the Negro had never before received.” Du Bois felt China deserved to be invaded by Japan while FDR interned and firebombed Japanese people. During the same time period, White attitudes on the West Coast of the US were decidedly more negative towards Chinese and Japanese than they were towards Blacks.

    While Blacks are at least seen as second-class citizens, Asians are not even recognized as citizens. Thus, Blacks are given protected status as “underrepresented” minorities while Asians are chided for their “privilege”.

  19. “Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years.”

    ― Muhammad Ali

    MLK was also against the Vietnam war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U

    We need more of these Black civil rights leaders and less of James Lamb-Fang racists.

  20. @jman,

    Sounds good in theory, but how exactly is that supposed to work when applied?

    For starters, having transparency is a good first step. And they got quantifiable numbers for everything in USofA, so there are people out there who can design something that “most people” would find “fair.” Reality isn’t going to be 100% agree the system is incorruptible, but in this age of Trumplandia, anything’s possible. ^_^

  21. @ aardvark

    In stark contrast to Malcolm X, MLK supported Israel’s invasion and occupation of Palestine. Contrary to American mythology, even supposed civil rights heroes had their racist faults. The Black Civil Rights Movement had the crucial support of the Jewish community so throwing Arabs under the bus was seen as politically necessary to avoid alienating their key ally. The war in Vietnam was easier to oppose since Blacks had a personal stake in it: Blacks were dying on the front lines in Vietnam, not Israel.

  22. @Kiwi,

    I’ll readily admit I’m not an expert on foreign influences on the Civil Rights era, but I do recall the USSR had keen interest to influence MLK and others because class issues is highly relevant to Black community socio-economics. This can be easily verified by google.

    However, I can’t find much on MLK and Israel support and anti-Palestine sentiments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_an_Anti-Zionist_Friend

    As for Malcolm X, the SJWs constantly prop him up thru Yuri Kochiyama’s involvement; but the SJWs never go into if it’s the pre-Mecca Malcolm X or post Mecca Malcolm X. Anyhow, since this is going off topic…

    Inasmuch the Civil Rights Era Black leaders and their stark contrast with today’s SJWs, there are no saints, but whether the issues they try to encompass does the most social good and can be seen as equitable for as many people as possible. That’s reality. T_T

  23. Aardvark,

    I’m neither saying transparency is a bad thing, nor am I saying it is a good thing. These decisions are based on a judgment call depending on the situation where there is a scarce supply of sought after positions. For each position, multiple factors are important, and it is not obvious on how to rank these factors in order of preference. Transparency will not alter the fundamental problem, which is it is impossible for reasonable people to agree upon the allocation of these positions. At this stage of the process you will get Affirmative Discrimination in the process by default.

  24. The easiest way to eliminate racial bias in school admissions is to oppose race-based admissions, which currently discriminates against Asians. Of course, people like Jay Chen will argue that it’s unfair to do away with race-based admissions because the status quo by default discriminates against Blacks and other underrepresented minorities. While there may be truth to that, this argument also wrongly presupposes that Asians benefit from White supremacy so its proponents cannot and should not be taken seriously.

  25. @ jman

    it is impossible for reasonable people to agree upon the allocation of these positions.

    I disagree. Any person who attacks a minority group for demanding equal treatment but who at the same time supports special treatment for another minority group, as the SJWs do, is not “reasonable” in any sense of the word. The fact that unreasonable ideas have become normalized and accepted as “reasonable” just speaks to the sad state of affairs for identity politics. Simply asking that schools treat Asians the same as Whites is already seen as complicity in anti-Blackness. There is no logical reason that Asians should accept inferior treatment to Whites, as much as the SJWs keep telling us we should.

  26. The problem with being an “overrepresented” minority, as liberals call us, is that you get none of the privileges of being White but can’t count on getting any of the protections that “underrepresented” minorities take for granted, either. And then people have the nerve to tell you to check your “privilege” while both sides of the aisle actively discriminate against you as a minority.

  27. The best that can be done is to reach some sort of equilibrium. The Ivy League might have a desire to attract high paying donors, high achieving academics, and help disadvantaged students with a limited number of students it can select. No matter what your going to leave people unhappy, who will demand more. If you accommodate everyone, then it is no longer an elite institution. The best you can do is to reach an equilibrium. If you want logic, you can look at Ken Arrow’s Impossibly Theorem.

  28. Demanding Asian quotas to end does not mean “accommodate everyone”. Even slaveowners are unhappy and demand more. Rationalizing discrimination against Asians only undermines the Ivy League’s credibility as an elite institution. Any “equilibrium” that exists is necessarily defined as whatever suits those in power.

    Unlike other races, Asians are not even asking for special treatment so it’s amazing how much resistance there is to Asians trying to remove unnecessary hurdles to their progress.

  29. Simply asking that schools treat Asians the same as Whites is already seen as complicity in anti-Blackness. There is no logical reason that Asians should accept inferior treatment to Whites, as much as the SJWs keep telling us we should. – Kiwi

    Yeah, this is weird to me. Asian American affirmative action opponents claim that there’s nothing wrong with the desire for people in their community to be treated the same as Whites by major American institutions, like selective colleges and universities.

    But that request is inherently shortsighted. The meaningful structural critique would request that selective colleges and universities recognize the discriminatory histories major American institutions possess, and seek to expand opportunity wherever it was long denied among American citizens.

    This ‘opportunity expansion’ many involve some affirmative action, to encourage, for example, children from Southeast Asian American refugee communities to embrace higher education, just as this ‘opportunity expansion’ may encourage rural, low-income children from Appalachian coal country to try college before wielding a pickax for a dying industry.

    Frankly, it’s not enough to say, “Treat us like you’d treat White people!” when you know that you live in a cosmopolitan society. That demand prefers to leave an unequal, unjust system intact, so long as members of your community, Asian Americans (specifically Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans) maintain social and economic parity (and privileged treatment) with Whites.

    Deriding the demand as anti-Black is nothing more than poorly phrased shorthand, but the central critique here argues that Asian Americans can ill afford demands for equal treatment that consciously ignore populations, often within their broad political demographic, that would remain exiled from institutional civility were the equal treatment demands realized.

    The best example I can provide comes from the Civil Rights Movement. Movement theorists did not argue for Black special treatment. They never suggested that all would be right with America once Black people, exclusively, gained the civic and economic status and treatment Whites enjoyed. Certainly some Movement leaders proved more internationalist than others; certainly the SCLC didn’t rush to provide labor protesters in the Southwest with aid anymore than the Black Panthers systematically policed the sexists within their organization.

    But it is clear that Movement theory promoted universal equality and social justice. Later social movements to assist minority language citizens or women or the queer community often readily return to the freedom songs and organizing tactics of the Civil Rights Movement because it argued that society worked best when everyone, regardless of race, or creed, or color, enjoyed the same rights, responsibilities, and expectations of fair treatment under the law.

    “Asking that schools treat Asians the same as Whites” ignores all that history, and asks society to allow Asian Americans blissful ignorance (read: privilege) before common injustice, just like Whites enjoy. Kiwi, such demands deserve condemnation. It’s ‘asking for special treatment’, defined.

  30. Kiwi,

    You have to first determine what everyone means by an elite intuition. Old money may want it to be elite for connection and singling purposes as much as they want it for academic purposes.

  31. Snoopy Jenkins’ comment is an excellent example of two of the points I made above:

    While there may be truth to that, this argument also wrongly presupposes that Asians benefit from White supremacy so its proponents cannot and should not be taken seriously.

    And then people have the nerve to tell you (ie: Asians) to check your “privilege” while both sides of the aisle actively discriminate against you as a minority.

    When Nazi Germany limited enrollment of Jews in elite institutions like medical and law schools, the argument could be made that the government was simply “expanding opportunity” for the German working class, who were deeply impoverished as a result of the Great Depression. At the time, Jews were arguably a privileged, urbanized elite with disproportionate representation in the professional class so it made sense to limit their numbers in order to aid the less fortunate Aryans. To many in Germany, this certainly seemed fair and reasonable, especially back then.

    Except such an argument today would be roundly decried as fascist and White supremacist by almost all stretches of the political spectrum.

    The fatal flaw in Snoopy’s argument that is both condescending and racist is that while Black identity politics are inherently egalitarian and just, Asian identity politics are inherently privileged and ignorant. The double standard is so blatant, it’s sad.

    From the Chinese-hating W.E.B. Du Bois’ praise of the Japanese-hating FDR’s recognition of Blacks in American political life to Snoopy Jenkins condemnation of Asian identity politics, nothing has changed. All his rhetoric proves is that Blacks have obtained second-class citizen status as opposed to Asian non-citizen status and used their relative privilege to push a fake narrative of “Asian privilege” that both racializes a false correlation and furthers White supremacy’s marginalization of Asians.

    Like all identity politics, every race demands a seat for their own at the White man’s table- so long as no one else is invited. Blacks are no different.

  32. The biggest disservice American liberalism has done for Asian identity politics is stereotyping Asians as a model minority that is “privileged” relative to “underrepresented” minorities, especially Blacks. But while Blacks have obtained some status as members of American society, albeit second-class, the same cannot be said of Asians. Asians are stereotyped as perpetual foreigners who are unassimilable at best, and alien invaders at worst. During World War II, Blacks who wished to steal Japanese American farms and fishing businesses made the argument that Blacks were loyal, trustworthy Americans as opposed to Japanese, who were suspected spies or saboteurs, even if US-born. It should go without saying that White attitudes towards Blacks during this era were far more positive than towards Asians. So much for the theory of “Asian privilege”.

  33. @jman,

    These decisions are based on a judgment call depending on the situation where there is a scarce supply of sought after positions. For each position, multiple factors are important, and it is not obvious on how to rank these factors in order of preference. Transparency will not alter the fundamental problem, which is it is impossible for reasonable people to agree upon the allocation of these positions.

    I’m not sure if I really believe in this notion of false scarcity in education. Indeed, with the rise of online education, I’m not even sure if the 18th century “human calculator management machine” system even works for a 21st century info tech based economy either.

    Other than the prestige factor for Ivy League Schools, what can’t be learned outside of the classroom and certified that in-person educators require? Is the name brand more important than individualized learning based on innate academic talent?

    Anyhow, assuming there’s a scarcity of seats at the Ivy schools, whatever the criteria is used to select students at least having an open and transparent system of selection makes people think it’s reasonable because those criteria are applied “equally” to applicants.

    Whereas, if it’s just some nebulous “holistic review” decision made in admissions smoke rooms, nobody can call that fair. True dat life ain’t fair, but when it’s public tax dollars funding the system, there has to be accountability to the general population. As long I’m a law-abiding tax paying citizen, I have the right to know what my “democratically elected” government is doing with my tax dollars.

  34. @jman,

    No matter what your going to leave people unhappy, who will demand more. If you accommodate everyone, then it is no longer an elite institution.

    This is totally fine as long the Ivy schools aren’t taking public tax dollars. Otherwise, taking tax money that’s equally contributed by law-abiding citizens without a system of transparency and accountability is called CORRUPTION.

  35. jman wrote:

    You have to first determine what everyone means by an elite intuition. Old money may want it to be elite for connection and singling purposes as much as they want it for academic purposes.

    YOu also have to first determine what everyone means “is” is. Nothing can be agreed up in poster-modern academia with “deconstructing” everything, except for the SJW narrative of protected URMs safe spaces.

    You have stated the crux of the issue: “elite” institutions are designed for networking of the social elites and not merely academic reasons. There’s nothing “elite” about the top schools if Asians go to the UC system like in CA and Stanford is ranked lower than Berkeley.

    The whole reason is to promote SJW tools to further the divide-and-conquer games:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pQ-YPjasGc

  36. lol Kiwi invoking Godwin’s Law so soon? I was going to school James Lamb-Fang later, but we’ll see if I have the time or go work on my WW2 project…

  37. Like all identity politics, every race demands a seat for their own at the White man’s table- so long as no one else is invited. – Kiwi

    Kiwi, this is demonstrably untrue.

    The whole point of modern progressive advocacy by and for people of color today is not to demand seats at any White man’s table, but to demand the end of any racial ownership of economic and educational opportunity and prosperity.

    I’m not interested in sitting at the White man’s table. If my citizenship means anything, neither he nor I nor anyone can own the table.

    The problem is that many people, yourself included apparently, fail to conceptualize a society in which they are not required to beg White America for political and economic favors. The point of the Civil Rights Movement, the point of Black nationalism, and even the point of a decentralized, multipolar social movement like Black Lives Matter is, in part, to cease the idea that identity politics need require people of color to ask White America for anything.

    In contrast, some people persist with this archaic and regressive idea that asking for social favor from White people constitutes race activism. It does not. Kiwi, you in essence argue that it’s moral and just for Asian Americans to request a social equality with White people that leaves other people of color behind.

    You should understand that any request for social equality that leaves people to suffer in vastly inequitable and unjust conditions is not a request for social equality at all, but rather a request for social privilege. That’s where the critique that references Asian privilege comes from: it’s a response to these bizarre cries for a social equality that always references White Americans alone as the focal point for a desired citizenship worthy of respect.

    When Asian American Peter Liang supporters argued in essence that American criminal justice proved unfair and unjust when it prosecuted Peter Liang for an extrajudicial killing of an unarmed Black man, since White officers involved in extrajudicial killings of unarmed Black men did not face prosecution, it offered the most stark example of this thinking among first and second generation Asian Americans in public in recent memory. The backlash these pro-Liang protesters received from other people of color was valid and understandable.

    The pro-Liang supporters subscribed to the notion that social equality in America means the valid expectation that major American institutions will treat individuals like they treat White people. These pro-Liang protesters did not take issue with the extra-judicial killing of Akai Gurley by police officers sworn to serve and protect him; rather they felt that any substantive difference in treatment between previous White officers in similar situations and Peter Liang was suspect.

    This means that the death of an unarmed civilian proved less important to them than the treatment of the officer who killed him. Nothing about that is acceptable, or moral. Kiwi, for yourself and the pro-Liang supporters, equal treatment for Asian Americans happens when Asian Americans gain White privilege.

    For many, many other Asian Americans (the vast majority, really), opposition to White supremacy involves, in part, the end to this elementary identity politics where White treatment exists as the barometer by which activists gauge minority justice. These voices take the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement seriously, and you’d do well to follow their example.

  38. When Asian American Peter Liang supporters argued in essence that American criminal justice proved unfair and unjust when it prosecuted Peter Liang for an extrajudicial killing of an unarmed Black man, since White officers involved in extrajudicial killings of unarmed Black men did not face prosecution, it offered the most stark example of this thinking among first and second generation Asian Americans in public in recent memory. The backlash these pro-Liang protesters received from other people of color was valid and understandable. – pure HORSESHIT from snoopy’s mouth
    Black officer Darren Ilardi carelessly killed Ryo Oyamada (asian) just a couple months before the Liang incident. He was even caught trying to cover up by claiming that he had the siren turned on (video footage showed otherwise). He is still working as an officer. In summary, all race of officers, INCLUDING BLACK have gotten off for killing accidentally. If the Liang protesters didn’t show up, he would be in jail right now. Even knowing this, Snoopy is implying that Liang received special treatment reserved for whites. Very warped perspective.

  39. @ Snoopy Jenkins

    These voices take the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement seriously, and you’d do well to follow their example.

    You know that’s BS.

    The most prominent leader of the Black Civil Rights Movement, MLK, had no problem throwing Arabs under the bus to placate Jews, an influential group of White people in American politics whose legal support Blacks needed to obtain many civil rights.

    Blacks overwhelmingly supported President Johnson when he began his war in Vietnam because they needed his help in pushing through civil rights legislation. They only opposed the war once Blacks started dying on the front lines in large numbers.

    Not a single Black civil rights organization opposed the Japanese American internment during World War II. Instead, the National Urban League wrote a congratulations letter to the president, thanking him for “eliminating racial bias” from the war effort.

    Black identity politics, from its very inception, has been exclusionary. Blacks fought and killed Natives and Mexicans as part of America’s imperialist expansion in Manifest Destiny. A common justification was to argue for Black civil rights by pointing to their service to the country.

    Where Natives, Latinos, and Asians are seen as threatening racial outsiders to American White supremacy, Blacks as a racial minority have the unique status of being seen as members and not guests in this society. They are also the only group to never experience a wholesale attempt to ethnically cleanse them from the American nation-state or a resultant population decline.

    Your distinction of Black identity politics as egalitarian and Asian identity politics as privileged is condescending and historically revisionist. In school admissions, Blacks receive preferential treatment whereas Asians receive discriminatory treatment relative to Whites. You would never argue that Jewish quotas were justified yet you consistently defend the practice of Asian quotas. That you defend special treatment for Blacks while simultaneously condemning Asian demands for equal treatment shows that you are a hypocrite and are merely using Asians as pawns for your own political gain, likely to keep your chair by the White man’s side.

  40. @ mmjames

    Not just Ryo Oyamada, but Joel Lee (Korean) was murdered by Davon Neverdon (Black), who said he hated Koreans and then bragged about killing a Korean. Neverdon was acquitted by an almost all Black jury because they didn’t want to send a young Black man with a “promising future” to jail. He later took part in the protests against Freddie Gray’s murder and is an activist against the mass incarceration of Black men, never mind that if the criminal justice system were fair, he would be sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his life. During the Freddie Gray protests, Black rioters attacked Chinese and Arab shops even though Gray was murdered by Black cops. Those cops were later acquitted by a Black jury with the help of a Black judge.

    Like the OJ Simpson verdict, history shows time and again that Blacks are just trying to get away with the same shit as Whites. But the SJWs like Jenkins keep ramming this narrative of Asian complicity in White supremacy and Blacks as “natural leaders among minorities” down our throats when they’re in fact the ones getting away with all sorts of racist shit because they’re a protected class.

  41. The biggest historical irony in the debate over how the education system treats Blacks vs. Asians is that in California, where almost all Asian American mainlanders lived before the Civil Rights era, Blacks were never forced by law to attend segregated schools while the law mandated that Asians attend segregated schools. In the only state before the 60s that had both large numbers of Blacks and Asians, Blacks were the protected class but Asians were not. Yet the SJWs want us to think otherwise and even spew out lies like Asians never being affected by Jim Crow. The Young Turks were guilty of this, which is why I stopped watching them.

  42. In summary, all race of officers, INCLUDING BLACK have gotten off for killing accidentally. If the Liang protesters didn’t show up, he would be in jail right now. Even knowing this, Snoopy is implying that Liang received special treatment reserved for whites. Very warped perspective. — mmjames

    You clearly misunderstand.

    I’m not saying that Peter Liang ‘received special treatment reserved for whites’. I’m saying that his supporters wanted him to receive special treatment reserved for Whites.

    The pro-Liang argument was that Liang should be treated like other police officers who killed unarmed civilians without provocation, not that killing unarmed civilians without provocation is morally wrong.

    Obviously, the pro-Liang supporters made a farcical, inhumane argument. The only reasonable perspective in cases like these is that no police officer should be allowed to kill unarmed civilians in this manner without criminal prosecution.

    Black police officers maim and kill civilians all the time, just like other police officers. Many of the police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray were Black; no widespread outcry emerged from Black America to defend those officers, because nothing about Freddie Gray’s arrest and transport in police custody should have resulted in his death.

    MMJames, reasonable civilians throughout America believe that police actions that result in innocent civilian deaths deserve proper scrutiny. You do not have to agree. The pro-Liang supporters do not have to agree. But when they suggested that Peter Liang should not be prosecuted because White police officers whose actions result in innocent civilian death are not prosecuted, they begged for White privilege, nothing more.

    That’s not identity politics. That’s a request for special treatment.

  43. Where Natives, Latinos, and Asians are seen as threatening racial outsiders to American White supremacy, Blacks as a racial minority have the unique status of being seen as members and not guests in this society. — Kiwi

    Kiwi, your complete misunderstanding of American history astounds. You illustrate that the only way by which one can attack Black race activism as exclusionary is to so completely misunderstand history that you in essence make stuff up as you go along.

    Black people have NEVER been viewed as members of American society: that ‘s why racial caste systems were erected in law and custom to oppress us since the seventeenth century.

    According to many observers, including Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and mass incarceration all exist as racial caste systems designed to deny Black people full membership in American society. Even today, Black citizens suffer from the lowest wealth and the highest disease rates, from the lowest employment rates and the lowest home ownership rates, precisely because our exclusion from American membership has been so total for so long.

    Hell, if you have to go to California (a place where next to no Black people lived before World War II) to describe a place where some Black students did not endure segregated schools, you illustrate the obvious. In all manner of Northern cities and throughout the South, Black people faced segregation as a daily and unchanging fact of life — schools, stores, restaurants, trains. hotels, buses, and even churches were segregated.

    To argue that Black people were seen as members of American society is to ignore all this history. This extreme ignorance does you no favors, Kiwi.

  44. They are also the only group to never experience a wholesale attempt to ethnically cleanse them from the American nation-state or a resultant population decline. — Kiwi

    What, you mean like slavery? Are you joking? Chattel slavery killed Black people by the millions. Add to this the lynching epidemic, pogroms of Black towns and neighborhoods during Jim Crow, race rioting, and the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan and like-minded groups that was not halted by local law enforcement throughout the country, and you find that Black Americans were, then and now, treated as a pariah race by Whites.

    The sad thing is that for some immigrants, inclusion into America leads them to desire White privilege as a response to the ill treatment suffered by Blacks that they observe. But it is false and ahistorical to argue that Black people never experienced wholesale ethnic cleansing. We just survived it.

    That you defend special treatment for Blacks while simultaneously condemning Asian demands for equal treatment shows that you are a hypocrite and are merely using Asians as pawns for your own political gain, likely to keep your chair by the White man’s side. — Kiwi

    Kiwi, now you’re just being ridiculous. No one’s argued for special treatment for Blacks; rather, I’ve persuasively reminded you that in very recent memory, certain Asian Americans argued for the special treatment many White police officers enjoy for one of their own — the right to kill unarmed, innocent Black people with impunity.

    No Asian American quotas exist in selective college and university admissions today. I’ve no need to justify what does not happen. Asian Americans do not receive discriminatory treatment in higher education; any glance at admissions statistics show that Asian American enrollment at selective colleges and universities has ballooned over the past thirty years, so there’s no evidence that any admission officer cabal has flouted federal law and Supreme Court precedent to discriminate against Asian Americans.

    Kiwi, it’s just not happening, and to continue to assert that Blacks receive preferential treatment is to ignore the myriad discrimination Black people endure in housing, health care, criminal justice, higher education, employment opportunity, and a number of other social and economic arenas.

    You just don’t have a clue, Kiwi. Amid all the horrible lynching, theft, rape, and imprisonment, during the unfree labor of slavery and the commonplace indignity of Jim Crow, Black people promoted universal civil and human rights. We never wished to sit by the White man’s side — this isn’t a Tarentino movie.

    We argued that forcing any man to work for nothing as a slave was wrong. We argued that when any man cannot vote because he lives in fear of terrorists in white sheets who will kill him and burn down his house if he casts a ballot, that was wrong. We argued that every man should be allowed to shop where he chooses, without anyone using his color to prevent him from using his dollars.

    Dr. King said it best: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that a just society is one that combats the inequality and oppression that everyone faces. It is a universal call for civil and human rights.

    Dr. King didn’t say, ‘The world is just when my people and Whites have equal rights.’ But that’s what you believe, Kiwi, and I think that’s immoral. None of us require civil and human rights ‘relative to Whites’. Drop the qualifier, Kiwi: we need civil and human rights, period.

    Black political thought has always recognized that the civic and human oppression Blacks faced in America resulted from the inability of our oppressors to recognize our basic humanity. Consequently, we have always argued that everyone should recognize everyone else’s humanity, not that everything’s better when we gain something akin to White privilege.

    Black people don’t want White privilege. We recognize that it exists as a concept in opposition to our humanity. In contrast, some Asian Americans like yourself take the scavenger view, and desire social and political parity with Whites has your highest political goal.

    Kiwi, you are the one who begs for a chair at the White man’s table. I’m Black. I’d rather hack that table into firewood.

  45. Snoopy, please put some thought into this…
    I’m not saying that Peter Liang ‘received special treatment reserved for whites’. I’m saying that his supporters wanted him to receive special treatment reserved for Whites.

    This is the claim made by our own Asian SJWs. Where is the actually proof? Asian immigrants traditionally hate and mistrust cops because there are high instances of corruption and abuse in their homeland. Race had nothing to do with this. Also, Asian immigrants are notorious for never complaining about unfairness compared to whites. How many significant incidents can you cite? Previous to and since the Liang incident? So why would they all of a sudden come out in such large numbers to defend a single (cop) person? The real reason they came out was that they saw the unjust shootings of cops against blacks and the subsequent street riots. They knew that the black community was rightfully angry at cops so when the Liang incident happened, they recognized the opportunity for public officials to appease black anger (that was actively being stirred by black leaders against Liang). They had to come out to stand up for Liang (themselves) or else asians will always be treated as punching bags. This was precisely what the Liang side has maintained all along. How can you, as a POC not see that!! Asians want to be treated fairly like everyone else, play on a level playing field — NOT to have white privilege.

    The pro-Liang argument was that Liang should be treated like other police officers who killed unarmed civilians without provocation, not that killing unarmed civilians without provocation is morally wrong.

    Obviously, the pro-Liang supporters made a farcical, inhumane argument. The only reasonable perspective in cases like these is that no police officer should be allowed to kill unarmed civilians in this manner without criminal prosecution.

    I have mentioned time and again on here and on Reappropriate that the degree to which cops should be held accountable for accidental killing/injury is subjective. I recognize that some people are more lenient and some more strict This is totally fine by me, either way. However I firmly believe that one must be consistent and race-neutral. Snoopy, you and those Asian SJWs and all others who wanted Liang jailed should really examine why there is lack of anger at Darren Ilardi for killing Oyamada. Why did Reappropriate not expend the same energy crucifying Ilardi? His continual employment in the force makes a mockery of of all those things you and Reappropriate supposedly stand for. Quit being hypocrites!!
    I have pointed out the hypocrisy several times at Reappropriate but no one had an explanation. Care to give it a try now Snoopy?

  46. By the way, this is why the conversation goes nowhere. For Snoopy, it’s all emotional. He’s not comparing the court decision to how the court normally acts (i.e. precedent) but is instead comparing the court decision to the blood he’d like to extract from Peter Liang. It’s not based on precedent, history, or fact; it’s based on his feelings towards Whitey and Chang.

    Also notice how much he writes about how bad Peter Liang is for having what everyone acknowledges is an accident. Compare it to the one paragraph he writes on one of the most monstrous crimes most people have ever heard of. If the perps are Black, he just doesn’t feel so bad.

    I think Colin Flaherty has a good way to think about the SJW arguments that come up when presented with Black crime. The three arguments are:

    1. Nope, doesn’t happen.
    2. White people do it too.
    3. White people deserve it because of White racism.

    These work with his court arguments too. He’s saying that White people get off all the time–without proof, of course. As I’ve always said, it’s emotional. We all see this and know it (and are used to it).

  47. Oh, and on a somewhat unrelated personal observation: the topics here rarely deal with science but what is the first thing that pops to mind when you read this quote:

    …a man of true science uses few hard words, and those only when none
    other will answer his purpose; Where as the smatterer in science…thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things.
    – Herman Melville

    😉

  48. @ Snoopy Jenkins

    Black people have NEVER been viewed as members of American society

    Wrong. Blacks were allowed to naturalize and become citizens in the 1860s. Asians were not allowed to naturalize until the 1950s. Even Whites of the time often felt that whereas Blacks were at least Americans like them, Asians never could be. This illustrates a form of access to privilege Blacks had that Asians didn’t and still don’t.

    Black citizens suffer from the lowest wealth and the highest disease rates, from the lowest employment rates and the lowest home ownership rates, precisely because our exclusion from American membership has been so total for so long.

    Wrong. Natives suffer the worst outcomes by all those metrics in part because of Blacks but we don’t see you talking about it, which just goes to show your own exclusionary and racist self-interest.

    California (a place where next to no Black people lived before World War II)

    Wrong. Many Blacks who took part in the Great Migration settled on the West Coast, particularly in California, and established communities in Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The millions of Black Californians today whose families date back to that era would laugh you out of the state.

    To argue that Black people were seen as members of American society is to ignore all this history.

    Blacks were not deported en masse or rounded up en masse into concentration camps. That honor went to Asians, Latinos, and Natives. Looks like you ignored that history.

    What, you mean like slavery?

    So shipping Africans onto American soil en masse and then breeding them to increase their numbers was an attempt to “ethnically cleanse” America of Blacks, even though doing so ballooned the Black population by the millions. Makes total sense if we see the world in Snoopy logic.

    Add to this the lynching epidemic, pogroms of Black towns and neighborhoods during Jim Crow, race rioting, and the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan and like-minded groups that was not halted by local law enforcement throughout the country

    All that and more happened to Asians, Latinos, and Natives. Yet again, we don’t hear you talking about it due to your racist and exclusionary self-interest.

    But it is false and ahistorical to argue that Black people never experienced wholesale ethnic cleansing. We just survived it.

    If you survived it, it wasn’t wholesale. Asians, Latinos, and especially Natives cannot say the same. Unlike Blacks, their populations were successfully whittled down, resulting in a country that was almost entirely White or Black by the time of the Civil Rights Movement. Hence, the focus of racial discourse today almost always being a White/Black binary, to the exclusion of everyone else. Doesn’t help that the dead don’t speak.

    No Asian American quotas exist in selective college and university admissions today.

    I’m sure you’d make the same argument about Jews and college admissions 100 years ago.

    Black people promoted universal civil and human rights. We never wished to sit by the White man’s side

    Wrong. Blacks took part in expansionist wars against Natives, Latinos, Asians, and now Muslims- all the while pointing to their service to argue for more rights. As a result, they sit closest to the White man’s side.

    Dr. King said it best: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that a just society is one that combats the inequality and oppression that everyone faces. It is a universal call for civil and human rights.

    How great if he had taken his own advice. His rigid defense of Israel and all the injustice it stood for shows the hypocrisy of your claims of Blacks as natural leaders among minorities.

    Consequently, we have always argued that everyone should recognize everyone else’s humanity, not that everything’s better when we gain something akin to White privilege.

    Tell that to Joel Lee’s family and the families of OJ Simpson’s victims. Heck, tell that to Freddie Gray’s family. The Black juries in all those cases felt that not everybody’s humanity matters, thus their acquittals of murderers. This tells me that Blacks are no different than Whites in their ability for evil. So cut the crap about Blacks being the vanguards of human liberation, to the exception of everyone else. Everybody (except you, of course) knows it’s bullshit.

  49. Even Wikipedia lists Peter Liang’s indictment as an act of anti-Chinese discrimination, and it’s a site run by mostly Whites. Given all the Black anger at Asians just for protesting the fact that they were discriminated against, it’s amazing how barely any of the same people care that Obama murdered thousands of civilians. As long they do it, it’s cool. If others do it, it’s a riot. That’s identity politics for ya.

  50. Just about every Black person would argue that a cop who only pulls over and tickets Blacks for speeding is racist. If we followed the SJW example, we would accuse Blacks of demanding White privilege and wanting to get away with speeding just for calling out the racist cop. But because Blacks are the protected class, that argument wouldn’t fly.

  51. There are many points when conversations here derail because of the inability of one or more participants to accept certain facts. For example, when I wrote …

    Hell, if you have to go to California (a place where next to no Black people lived before World War II) to describe a place where some Black students did not endure segregated schools, you illustrate the obvious. In all manner of Northern cities and throughout the South, Black people faced segregation as a daily and unchanging fact of life — schools, stores, restaurants, trains. hotels, buses, and even churches were segregated. — Snoopy Jenkins

    I made clear that it’s counterfactual to assert that the absence of segregated schools that separated Black students from White students at some point in California’s history, a point Kiwi alleged, means very much, given the overwhelming impact on most Black Americans of Jim Crow segregation. To disagree with this, Kiwi alleged the following:

    Wrong. Many Blacks who took part in the Great Migration settled on the West Coast, particularly in California, and established communities in Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The millions of Black Californians today whose families date back to that era would laugh you out of the state. — Kiwi

    The problem here is that Kiwi displays no affinity for nuance and no context for observable fact. The point I raised is that the vast majority of Black people in the Twentieth Century lived under the racial caste system known as Jim Crow, where lethal sanctions awaited any Black person deemed in violation of it’s legal and social precepts, especially it’s prohibitions against racial mixing. Before World War II, I suggested, very few Blacks lived in California.

    Yes, some Blacks did relocate in California. But in comparison to the vast majority of Black America, their numbers were always tiny. View a simple chart of Black population as a percentage of the total population by U.S. region and state (1790-2010) and it’s clear that in no point before 1950 did the Black population of the state rise above two percent of the whole.

    Black Californians have never enjoyed a total population in that state that rose above 7.7% of the whole; while that figure represents thousands of people, it’s a severe minority given the geographic and population abundance California enjoys, historically and currently.

    Further, as any history of the L.A.P.D. will attest, Black Californians endured horrible racist treatment from Californian state and municipal agencies, so the supposed absence of segregated schools that separated Black and White students in a few Californian locales — if true — does not provide an accurate picture of the racial discrimination Black Californians faced, nor does it provide an accurate census of Black Californians in relation to the total state population.

    Really Kiwi, like with most of your statements, you relay nothing based in fact.

    It’s fine to disagree with my politics; I don’t expect conservative Asian American nationalists like yourselves to agree with a Black liberal like me. But if participants in this conversation prove unable to accept easily verifiable facts in their zeal to dismiss my perspectives as incorrect, then you prove yourselves irrational.

    Kiwi, it’s still wrong to assert that Black Americans are an accepted, even protected class when Black Americans have been subjected to many of America’s worst civic violations, financial theft, and state-sponsored/ approved terrorism. We should not play ‘Oppression Olympics’. First, no real winners exist. Secondly, any reasonable tally of Asian American suffering simply cannot be compared to that endured by other groups within the American context.

    Lastly, any reasonable tally must consider the facts as we know them about the various horrors respective peoples have endured here. There exists an extensive literature on chattel slavery, settler colonialism, and restrictive immigration laws. I suggest you review this literature in detail before you make any further counterfactual statements, Kiwi.

  52. @Kiwi,

    Thanks for schooling James Lamb-Fang. Despite his hypocrisy of not engaging in Oppression Olympics, he is like that special-ed kid: no matter how much you argue at the end everybody is still a loser.

  53. Snoopy,

    Do you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion? An opinion can’t be “counterfactual” because it’s an opinion, not an assertion of fact. Opinions are supported by facts; they don’t take the place of facts.

    Maybe this is the case only among moderates and those who are rational. Among extremists and those who are pure emotion, they’re often one and the same. But this site uses rational thought.

  54. @bigWOWO,

    LOLZ James Lamb-Fang’s Ivy League post-modernist education probably told him that in this day and age of “post-facts” and “post-truths” that SJWs can have their safe spaces and internet crybully all day long without regards to facts and data.

    #MakeAmericaRationalAgain

  55. Also, other than James Lamb-Fang’s typical spin doctoring, Strawmans and distortion of words: if wanting equality and justice for all without regards to color, sex, religion, gender, et. al is considered trying to obtain special privilege and white privilege in the SJWs empty rhetoric is called “race conservatism” then the SJW doublespeak is just said.

    The Ivy schools are failing these SJW kids, seriously. The future of this country is in trouble if post-modernists can distort reality into such a warped sense of words where up is down and black is white where 1984 doublespeak got nothing on the SJWs.

    #MakeAmericaSaneAgain

  56. James Lamb-Fang the equivocator wrote:

    Asian American affirmative action opponents claim that there’s nothing wrong with the desire for people in their community to be treated the same as Whites by major American institutions, like selective colleges and universities.

    If why “treated the same as Whites” means that all people (White, Black, Latinos, Asians, Middle-Easterners, hapas, LGBQT and cis/trans-gender, atheists, physical/mental disabled) should be treated the same according to the law and social norms, then sign me up.

    I don’t give two bits about what you call it. To most people it’s called EQUALITY and FAIRNESS. SJW doublespeak might call it “race conservative” but words don’t mean nothing – because it’s actions and social policies to matter more than James Lamb-Fang empty racist rhetorics.

    The meaningful structural critique would request that selective colleges and universities recognize the discriminatory histories major American institutions possess, and seek to expand opportunity wherever it was long denied among American citizens.

    While everybody can agree with this superficial statement, plus also recognizing the current discrimination of USofA society. You’ve conveniently neglected the Ivy Schools current racist practices of Affirmative DISCRIMINATION.

    Affirmative ACTION is extremely commendable and should be embraced by society to promote more a just and equal society where cronyism and nepotism is the order of the day else-wise.

    That demand prefers to leave an unequal, unjust system intact, so long as members of your community, Asian Americans (specifically Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans) maintain social and economic parity (and privileged treatment) with Whites.

    James Lamb-Fang says it again: he’s a racist against AMs.

    If there’s to be a functional quota system, then I expect Juliard to reserve seats for Asians, and the NBA to reserve seats for Asians. Otherwise, giving preferential treatment to one demographic: protected URMs, but keeping out others in different aspects of society smacks of racist preferential treatment by the SJWs.

    Asian Americans can ill afford demands for equal treatment that consciously ignore populations, often within their broad political demographic, that would remain exiled from institutional civility were the equal treatment demands realized.

    What’s is “Asian” except a racist category to lump populations for shorthand counting? To this day I’m still experiencing discrimination from Taiwanese, Koreans and Japanese, because of the fact 70% Asians are foreign born and hold on to racist notions from the old country.

    I’ve had Cambodians and Vietnamese who snickered at me in the past here in SoCal. To lump everybody into the same category and then SJWs cry “disaggreation” is simply hypocrisy to the max!

    The best example I can provide comes from the Civil Rights Movement…

    But it is clear that Movement theory promoted universal equality and social justice.

    Everything to James Lamb-Fang is about Black identity politics; hijack the Asian American forums for his own racist agendas.

    James Lamb-Fang will never be anywhere near the civil rights leadership in terms of popular support.

    society worked best when everyone, regardless of race, or creed, or color, enjoyed the same rights, responsibilities, and expectations of fair treatment under the law.

    So practice what you preach and demand fair treatment and equal rights for everybody!

    You’re playing social engineering based on arbitrary and capricious hypocrite standards with “holistic review” that has no transparency whatsoever.

    “Asking that schools treat Asians the same as Whites” ignores all that history, and asks society to allow Asian Americans blissful ignorance (read: privilege) before common injustice

    The only one who’s demanding special treatment, is you, James Lamb-Fang with your racist rhetoric that denies the history of racial discrimination against Asian Americans.

    to demand the end of any racial ownership of economic and educational opportunity and prosperity.

    And yet the hypocrite James Lamb-Fang never decries the legacy and “donor” students at Ivy Schools. Because he knows he can’t demolish racist white institutions but resort to targeting the easiest scapegoats: Asians.

    The problem is that many people, yourself included apparently, fail to conceptualize a society in which they are not required to beg White America for political and economic favors.

    And yet the one option that hypocrite racist James Lamb-Fang never acknowledges is the power of boycott: it happened with the civil rights movement, Ghandi and countless unionizing efforts.

    Asians behoove themselves to boycott the racist Ivy schools.

    In contrast, some people persist with this archaic and regressive idea that asking for social favor from White people constitutes race activism.

    The hypocrite speaks! The SJWs are the only ones asking for social engineering special favors of the white admissions officers for race activism racism.

    Asians are only after EQUITABLE and FAIR admissions STANDARDS by which all people are applied.

    you in essence argue that it’s moral and just for Asian Americans to request a social equality with White people that leaves other people of color behind.

    *YAWN* More of the same old James Lamb-Fang Strawmans.

    That’s where the critique that references Asian privilege comes from: it’s a response to these bizarre cries for a social equality that always references White Americans alone as the focal point for a desired citizenship worthy of respect.

    And yet neither Jenn Fang nor James Lamb-Fang refuse to call the constant racist AF/WM media images and dehumanization of AMs. The only “Asian privilege” afford here is AFs like Jenn Fang currying favors with the white SJW leadership.

    it offered the most stark example of this thinking among first and second generation Asian Americans in public in recent memory.

    Byron is a 4th gen ABC, and there are tons of 2+ gen ABCs on reddit who decried the NYC racist judicial system against both Liang conviction and other corrupt NYPD LACK of convictions. Because it’s a travesty of the justice system.

    Somehow, James Lamb-Fang, as per usual MO of anti-Asian racism, never acknowledges the racist institutions against white and black cops walking away scot-free; then goes on to crazy lengths to distort and spin doctor to throw the books at Asians.

    This means that the death of an unarmed civilian proved less important to them than the treatment of the officer who killed him. Nothing about that is acceptable, or moral.

    Yet more of James Lamb-Fang’s racist spin doctoring and Strawmans. Nobody thought Liang should NOT be punished, but merely that the punishment fit the crime. In Liang’s case of AN ACCIDENT, the crime is Liang being an idiot given the badge which he’s not qualified for and which the NYPD doesn’t give sufficient resources and training to their rookies for.

    James Lamb-Fang spin doctors that people are upset at the inequity of Liang not being able to walk away scot-free like white AND black NYPD cops, but the truth is people are upset because of the BIASED criminal system which is arbitrary and capricious in going after scapegoats and which serve no justice to society. That is the real motivation.

    James Lamb-Fang simply Strawmans, lies and spin doctors as per his MO.

    These voices take the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement seriously, and you’d do well to follow their example.

    To think yourself as related to the Civil Rights Movement is laughable when nobody buys into James Lamb-Fang’s racist rhetoric and advocacy for special treatment for only SJW protected URMs demographics.

    I’m saying that his supporters wanted him to receive special treatment reserved for Whites.

    Where’s the DATA and reliable references for this? Otherwise, more of the same old James Lamb-Fang lies and Strawmans.

    The pro-Liang argument was that Liang should be treated like other police officers who killed unarmed civilians without provocation, not that killing unarmed civilians without provocation is morally wrong.

    Since when is “killing” the same as “accident” in SJW doublespeak?

    Accidents are morally wrong, but it happens all the time to good people, so go complain to God about it.

    The only reasonable perspective in cases like these is that no police officer should be allowed to kill unarmed civilians in this manner without criminal prosecution.

    I’d agree there is criminal negligence, and cops should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the punishment made more severe. Liang was negligent in rescuing Gurley and has been convicted for manslaughter and hopefully that sets a precedent for cop convictions down the line.

    Many of the police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray were Black; no widespread outcry emerged from Black America to defend those officers

    And yet the sensationalist media always want to focus on white cop-on-black victim incidents without nary any word on black cop-on-black victim discourse.

    You should bring up that just to avoid being labeled the hypocrite that you are.

    when they suggested that Peter Liang should not be prosecuted because White police officers whose actions result in innocent civilian death are not prosecuted, they begged for White privilege, nothing more.

    That’s not identity politics. That’s a request for special treatment.

    And yet where is hypocrite James Lamb-Fang on the Ryo Oyamada and Joel Lee cases? Hypocrisy much?

  57. James Lamb-Fang the hypocrite wrote:

    Black people don’t want White privilege. We recognize that it exists as a concept in opposition to our humanity. In contrast, some Asian Americans like yourself take the scavenger view, and desire social and political parity with Whites has your highest political goal.

    LOLZ!!! Where’s John Doe? James Lamb-Fang the self-anointed one and only speaker for all African-Americans in these troubled times.

    At least Jenn Fang is not completely egomaniac to think she speaks for all Asian-Americans.

    And James Lamb-Fang yet again makes everything about himself and Blacks in USofA. Nobody else matters, no respect for others’ history but just James Lamb-Fang waxing empty rhetoric counts.

    I don’t expect conservative Asian American nationalists

    LOLZ!!! What does this even mean “Asian American nationalists?” When it’s Asian Americans who are screaming there’s social and institutional racism? James Lamb-Fang doublespeak is entertaining!

    James Lamb-Fang, what was your Cornell application letter like? What chattel suffering and Jim Crow inequity did you endure personally?

  58. @ Snoopy Jenkins

    It’s not your politics I disagree with, it’s your opinions that are wrong and misleading.

    If “no Blacks” lived in California before World War II, then there were “no Asians” in California, either, despite the fact that the vast majority of mainland Asian Americans lived in California. The Asian Californian population in 1940 was a mere 30% larger than the Black Californian population, yet Asians faced a far worse environment of racism than Blacks.

    I document that white prejudice and legal discrimination in labor, education and housing markets in CA were, if anything, harsher toward Asians than blacks in CA in many respects due to Asians’ status as both non-whites and “aliens ineligible for citizenship.”

    Upward Mobility and Discrimination: The Case of Asian Americans

    http://www.colorado.edu/economics/seminars/SeminarArchive/2016-17/Hilger.pdf

    The paper also highlights that Asians experienced a level of racial violence that Blacks never did in California.

    Asians experienced mob violence including lynchings and over 200 “roundups” from 1849-1906 (Pfaelzer, 2008), and hostility from anti-Asian clubs much like the Ku Klux Klan (e.g., the Asiatic Exclusion League, Chinese Exclusion League, Workingmen’s Party of CA), to an extent that does not appear to have any counterpart for blacks in CA history.

    To top it off, nothing in living memory that Black Californians experienced compares to what Japanese Americans went through during World War II yet SJWs like you argue that they are an “overrepresented” and “privileged” group, complicit in anti-Black White supremacy. In short, it’s all about you. Never mind the facts.

    We should not play ‘Oppression Olympics’.

    Pot…

    Secondly, any reasonable tally of Asian American suffering simply cannot be compared to that endured by other groups within the American context.

    … meet Kettle.

    The reason Asian American suffering “can’t be compared” to others, especially Blacks, is because, duh, Asians were either massacred or driven out of the country or prevented from forming families. Because of that, Asians made up only half a percent of the US during the Civil Rights Movement. Almost every single person of color in America at the time was Black. Of course any subsequent racial discourse would be heavily shaped by Blacks, to the exclusion of other races. That has carried over to the present. People like you are living proof of that.

    In the same way that White women have marginalized women of color in feminist discourse, the greatest disservice that Blacks have done for American racial discourse is marginalize other people of color, especially Asians. In 1997, Bill Clinton set up a commission for a “dialogue on race” that had no Natives, Latinos or Asians.

    WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS???

  59. The majority of American racial psychology literature is about Blacks, even though most people of color are not Black. I do not think the psychological needs of Blacks are more important than those of all non-Black minorities combined, so in the sense that American academia cares about one race’s psychological health more than others, yes, Blacks are a protected class.

  60. During the same week that the media was all over the deaths of two Black men by police, the media completely ignored the deaths of five Latinos by police. I do not think the lives of two Blacks are more important than the lives of five Latinos, so in the sense that the American media cares more about the lives of one race, yes, Blacks are again a protected class.

  61. American schools teach that lynching was something that happened almost exclusively to Blacks. They don’t teach that Natives, Mexicans, and Chinese were hit harder by racial violence and killings than Blacks were in the Old West. Mexicans, for example, were lynched at a rate about ten times higher than Blacks were lynched under Jim Crow. But of course, nothing is supposed to compare to “the Black experience™” because Blacks are the protected class.

  62. If “no Blacks” lived in California before World War II, then there were “no Asians” in California, either, despite the fact that the vast majority of mainland Asian Americans lived in California. The Asian Californian population in 1940 was a mere 30% larger than the Black Californian population, yet Asians faced a far worse environment of racism than Blacks. — Kiwi

    This is incorrect on a number of levels. First, I never said that “no Blacks” lived in California before World War II, I made a relative claim, specifically that next to no Black Americans lived in California before World War II. This claim is supported by easily attainable population statistics, like those I linked to earlier.

    Secondly, to argue that “Asians faced a far worse environment of racism than Blacks” in California geographically limits the discussion on Twentieth Century racism past sanity. It’s clear that Asian Americans faced severe racism during that era, but it is not clear that they faced a worse race environment than Blacks within that state, nor is it clear that the only comparison point on American racism during that era between Blacks and Asians should be California.

    Kiwi, you in essence wish to claim that Black Americans were somehow ‘protected’ in an America where the vast majority of racial mob violence and institutional discrimination within private and public sectors was inflicted on Black Americans.

    In your zeal to move the conversation past Black and White strife, you discount the major fault line of American race relations. None of that makes sense. Sure, you’re welcome to make claims about Californian race relations, but when the overwhelming majority of Black Americans did not and have not lived in California, it’s not logical to broaden your claim to assert anything about Black Americans as somehow ‘protected’ by their country of origin, based on evidence from California’s history.

    The history of this nation as a whole disagrees with your assessment. Further, you forget that there is no useful place to compare Asian American and Black American discrimination history, because there’s no state where relatively large numbers of Blacks and Asians coexisted before the modern era.

    But you have to know that history to know that, and your ignorance abounds, Kiwi. You have to read slave narratives before you make claims about ‘protected’ Blacks. You have to read lynching accounts from Ida B. Wells, and W.E.B. Du Bois’ The Souls of Black Folk before you can pretend to know enough about the Black American experience to claim we’ve benefited from some sort of protection. Further, you have to grapple with the amazing educational and economic trajectory some Asian American groups have enjoyed since the Civil Rights Movement dismantled segregation’s barriers for all.

    Frankly, without the multiracial advocacy led by Black Americans to dismantle legal segregation in America, I do not believe that Asian Americans like yourself would enjoy the vast educational and employment opportunities you possess today. Were Black Americans the ‘protected’ class you suggest, Kiwi, there’d be little reason for Black people to engage street-level political conflict with White supremacy.

    American history makes clear that Blacks in every era opposed the racism and discrimination at the heart of the American project, precisely because they — though not alone — were the population most likely to suffer negative effects from American discrimination. Kiwi, controlling your interest in this history for California before World War II does not change this fact.

    If you have to make claims about the Asian American experience with racism in comparison to the Black American experience with racism, you can’t only examine spaces where few Black people lived, especially when the vast majority of Black Americans caught hell under racist American state and local regimes elsewhere in the country, where few Asian Americans lived. This should be obvious for you.

  63. In the same way that White women have marginalized women of color in feminist discourse, the greatest disservice that Blacks have done for American racial discourse is marginalize other people of color, especially Asians. In 1997, Bill Clinton set up a commission for a “dialogue on race” that had no Natives, Latinos or Asians.

    WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS??? — Kiwi

    First, you are incorrect again, Kiwi. Bill Clinton did include Latinos and Asians in his seven member advisory board for his initiative on race in 1997. Angela E. Oh, a lawyer famed for her work after the Los Angeles riots served on the board, as did Linda Chavez-Thompson of the AFL-CIO.

    Second, You are welcome to believe that Blacks marginalize other people of color; as this board’s history suggests, many Black people have as much trouble as our fellow White citizens moving beyond a Black/ White race paradigm. But America has always been a multicultural, multiracial space, so we owe it to ourselves to understand others’ perspectives, and the histories that animate those perspectives.

    This means attention to historical detail, and reasonable context. Moving beyond a Black/ White paradigm on race runs into severe political challenges that all of us must attend. In 1997, Natives, Latinos and Asians couldn’t alter either parties’ presidential ambitions through bloc voting. Then and now, Black voters can, so it should not surprise anyone that national media and partisan groups force race commentary designed to appeal within the Black/ White paradigm throughout popular discourse.

    But the demographic shifts that affect Western states since 1997 radically altered this dynamic. Now, both parties make shallow, non-substantive appeals to Asian Americans and Latinos, because of the rising voting power these groups wield. Appeals are less likely to be directed toward Asian Americans, in large measure because of the high concentration of Asian Americans in overwhelmingly liberal coastal states.

    Black Americans were never the cause of the Black/ White paradigm that leaves other groups marginalized. The cause was always White supremacy, and the adaptation to cosmopolitanism within progressive and Democratic Party circles reflects both advocacy efforts by people of color and partisan adaptation to changing electoral realities.

  64. James Lamb-Fang the equivocator wrote:

    It’s clear that Asian Americans faced severe racism during that era, but it is not clear that they faced a worse race environment than Blacks within that state, nor is it clear that the only comparison point on American racism during that era between Blacks and Asians should be California.

    The hypocrisy of not playing in the Oppression Olympics! Plus, the fact that James Lamb-Fang has personally witnessed events over 100 years ago and is the final arbiter on the losers of the Oppression Olympics!

    Kiwi, you in essence wish to claim that Black Americans were somehow ‘protected’ in an America where the vast majority of racial mob violence and institutional discrimination within private and public sectors was inflicted on Black Americans.

    Disingenuous! Conflating several time eras when Kiwi specially have said it’s about current day protected URMs by the SJWs.

    there is no useful place to compare Asian American and Black American discrimination history, because there’s no state where relatively large numbers of Blacks and Asians coexisted before the modern era.

    And yet James Lamb-Fang’s own hypocrisy goes on to great lengths to make the comparisons himself! Hypocrite!

    you have to grapple with the amazing educational and economic trajectory some Asian American groups have enjoyed since the Civil Rights Movement dismantled segregation’s barriers for all.

    Make your thesis clear! Are you stating there is or there is not segregation barriers? You can’t even make consistent and concrete statements without your racist emotional outbursts.

    Frankly, without the multiracial advocacy led by Black Americans to dismantle legal segregation in America, I do not believe that Asian Americans like yourself would enjoy the vast educational and employment opportunities you possess today.

    What have you, James Lamb-Fang, personally done for Asian Americans? Other than taking credit for true visionaries and pioneers over 50 years ago, what have you done except to belittle and denigrate and disfranchise Asian Americans, James “racist hypocrite” Lamb-Fang?

    America has always been a multicultural, multiracial space, so we owe it to ourselves to understand others’ perspectives, and the histories that animate those perspectives.

    Practice what you preach and stop being a racist hypocrite! As long people kowtow to your racist SJW rhetoric you give them a voice on Reappropriate, but censors everybody else.

    it should not surprise anyone that national media and partisan groups force race commentary designed to appeal within the Black/ White paradigm throughout popular discourse.

    In other words, stop telling Asians how to feel and vote then. If your own egomaniac tendencies of Black voters have sway, then stop disfranchising other populations with your lies and distortions.

    both parties make shallow, non-substantive appeals to Asian Americans and Latinos, because of the rising voting power these groups wield. Appeals are less likely to be directed toward Asian Americans, in large measure because of the high concentration of Asian Americans in overwhelmingly liberal coastal states.

    Thank you! I actually give credit where credit is due. Is James Lamb-Fang actually learning?

    Yes, because of historical racism and the fact unspoken segregation is still the order of the day, Asian American voting power is diminished with clustering in coastal cities and Asian Americans are held hostage by DNC racism.

    Black Americans were never the cause of the Black/ White paradigm that leaves other groups marginalized. The cause was always White supremacy

    I most definitely also agree with this statement. However, what are you, James “dissing on the disfranchised scapegoats” doing to fight back against white supremacy, particularly the SJW and regressive leftists?

    Democratic Party circles reflects both advocacy efforts by people of color and partisan adaptation to changing electoral realities.

    There’s a concept called false dichotomy and the DNC is the flip side of the GOP. DNC doesn’t have people of colors’ interests at heart, and especially not the GOP. It’s called lesser of two evils.

    The real social change has to come from grassroots outsider perspectives and mobilization. The DNC shot themselves in the head with not nominating Bernie Sanders and deserve all the upheaval this year. Hopefully, this is the darkest it gets before sunrise of true democracy and social progress in ‘Murica.

  65. @ Snoopy Jenkins

    I made a relative claim, specifically that next to no Black Americans lived in California before World War II.

    By that same logic, next to no Japanese lived in California before World War II, especially relative to Blacks, so there is no point in commenting on the Japanese American internment. Logic fail.

    It’s clear that Asian Americans faced severe racism during that era, but it is not clear that they faced a worse race environment than Blacks within that state

    It is very clear if you bothered to read the study I linked, which I know you did not. The authors of the study have put in far more hours of thought, research, and data into the relative racism Blacks and Asians experienced in California during the early-mid 1900s than the less than five minutes you have. The solid case is made that the level of White racism on the West Coast was greater towards Asians than towards Blacks. But for reasons of your racial ideology that Blacks were always on bottom, even when they were not, you will adhere to beliefs and not facts.

    the vast majority of racial mob violence and institutional discrimination within private and public sectors was inflicted on Black Americans.

    That’s only because the vast majority of racial minorities were Black, especially in the Eastern United States. In places where minorities of other races were more numerous, like the Western United States, other races bore the brunt of violence and discrimination.

    when the overwhelming majority of Black Americans did not and have not lived in California, it’s not logical to broaden your claim to assert anything about Black Americans

    When the overwhelming majority of Asian Americans did live in California, it’s not logical to broaden your claim to assert anything about Asian Americans relative to Blacks. So quit being a hypocrite.

    Further, you forget that there is no useful place to compare Asian American and Black American discrimination history, because there’s no state where relatively large numbers of Blacks and Asians coexisted before the modern era.

    This is how I know you did not read the study I linked. The paper makes the solid case that California was unique in that it had substantial numbers of both Asians and Blacks, allowing for a meaningful comparison of experiences with racism. Asians had it worse, which is a fact you will not accept in spite of all scholarly research.

    Further, you have to grapple with the amazing educational and economic trajectory some Asian American groups have enjoyed since the Civil Rights Movement dismantled segregation’s barriers for all.

    This is yet another reason I know you did not read the study I linked. The rise in Asian American incomes began after World War II, well before the Civil Rights Movement. The reason Asians pulled ahead where Blacks lagged behind is not because Asians now experience less discrimination, but because Asians experienced more discrimation to begin with. When discriminatory institutions were dismantled, Asians appeared to make the biggest gains because they were facing higher barriers.

    without the multiracial advocacy led by Black Americans to dismantle legal segregation in America, I do not believe that Asian Americans like yourself would enjoy the vast educational and employment opportunities you possess today.

    You don’t have any studies to back that claim. I already linked a study that disproves it. Your view of Blacks as “natural leaders” among minorities is as racist as it is condescending because it erases all the historical struggles for civil rights that Asians fought for independently of Blacks. Asians established the legal precedent that the Supreme Court used to strike down Jim Crow under the premise that “separate but equal” was racist. But of course, SJWs like you will never acknowledge that.

    American history makes clear that Blacks in every era opposed the racism and discrimination at the heart of the American project, precisely because they — though not alone — were the population most likely to suffer negative effects from American discrimination.

    Blacks actively took part in the oppression of other races, including Natives, Latinos, and Asians, fighting and killing them while at the same time arguing for Black civil rights. Unlike Natives, Latinos, and Asians, Blacks never experienced genocide, wholesale ethnic cleansing from the US, mass deportation, or mass internment in camps/reservations. Dead men don’t speak, so as a result the voices we hear are mostly Black.

    If you have to make claims about the Asian American experience with racism in comparison to the Black American experience with racism, you can’t only examine spaces where few Black people lived, especially when the vast majority of Black Americans caught hell under racist American state and local regimes elsewhere in the country, where few Asian Americans lived.

    Asians were forced to attend segregated schools in the Jim Crow South, a place where next to no Asians lived, even fewer compared to the number of Blacks in California. Because Blacks were not forced to attend segregated schools in California, this suggests that anti-Asian and not anti-Black racism was more pervasive in the United States. Your appeal to emotion and not fact defies all common sense.

    In 1997, Natives, Latinos and Asians couldn’t alter either parties’ presidential ambitions through bloc voting. Then and now, Black voters can, so it should not surprise anyone that national media and partisan groups force race commentary designed to appeal within the Black/ White paradigm throughout popular discourse.

    Exactly. Access to political power, media coverage, and popular discourse that other races do not have is a form of relative privilege that Blacks have over other people of color. Even now, Americans are more comfortable with a Black president, CEO, or supervisor than with an Asian one. This defies the notion that Asians are privileged relative to Blacks.

    Black Americans were never the cause of the Black/ White paradigm that leaves other groups marginalized.

    Yes, they were. 20% of American frontier forces that fought, killed, and rounded up Natives into concentration camps during the 1890s were Black, almost double their share of the country’s population.

  66. Kiwi,

    I find the study you linked problematic on several levels, but my main contention is that it is not possible to meaningfully compare Asian American experiences with race discrimination and White prejudice with Black American experiences with race discrimination and White prejudice, even in California. The attempt to do so in this paper is to my mind conceptually flawed.

    A further complication between these populations emerges from the fact that many Asian American and Black American Californian residents during the mid-Twentieth Century were immigrants in that state: in both populations significant portions of each population were newcomers to that state. But here, stark differences remain. Black Americans who relocated to California were likely to travel from areas in the Deep South or from Northern cities where Jim Crow segregation and domestic terrorism from vigilante groups against Black Americans proved commonplace.

    It’s certainly possible that Asian Americans may have endured similar life-altering daily encounters with American racism in their formative years in California. However, before the author can assert that Asian Americans and Black Americans in California endured similar difficulties with White supremacy (enough so that he can make claims about which group endured worse treatment or to account for Asian Americans’ rough economic parity with Whites by the mid-1960’s, the author must specifically qualify the breath and depth of typical Asian American encounters with racist activity.

    Black people, including those who arrived in California, were daily shaped by the omnipresent threat of domestic terrorism, by the state-sponsored theft that accompanied their absent voting rights, by the violence that traveled with every use of the basic civil liberties others took for granted. If, for example, a Black man leaves the sharecropping South in his twenties, and makes it to California through some miracle, he’s still absorbed twenty-odd years of racism the likes of which modern Americans can scarcely understand.

    The study you cite needs some mechanism to reference this typical background in its discrimination calculus in order for that calculus to remain practical, and I found the absence of that material telling. In like fashion, I believe that any discussion of Asian American encounters with White supremacy should discuss not only those violations, but the likely violations Asian immigrants endured leading up to their journeys on American soil. The fact of anti-Asian school segregation by itself tells us very little; we also need to know how and why Asian Americans withstood such treatment.

    Once all that information is reviewed, I think the only reasonable conclusion possible is that it is not possible to compare the treatment Asian Americans and Black Americans received from White supremacy, as there is no way to equalize what that treatment meant for the people involved. Kiwi, we can’t play ‘Oppression Olympics’, because there is no way to render human difference in a simple mathematical formula.

    If you are interested in discussing methods by which citizens can move beyond the Black/ White race conversation paradigm, Kiwi, that’s fine. But blaming Black Americans for marginalizing other groups on race is to my mind completely flawed thinking. Asian Americans endured segregation in the West, but that segregation ended as a direct result of the public protest and legislative advocacy enacted by a multiracial coalition led by Black Americans.

    Asian Americans endured housing and employment discrimination in the West, but that discrimination ended as a direct result of the public protest and legislative advocacy enacted by a multiracial coalition led by Black Americans. In no small way, your freedom to view Black Americans as impediments to your political goals exists because Black Americans fought, bled, marched, and died for universal human rights.

    Of course Kiwi, you’re under no obligation to remember this history. Like your easily verifiable mistake on Bill Clinton’s 1997 initiative on race, you’ve every right to be wrong. But to view your stance as anything other than race tribalism devoid of history and basic common sense is far too kind.

  67. James Lamb-Fang the equivocator wrote:

    it is not possible to meaningfully compare Asian American experiences with race discrimination and White prejudice with Black American experiences with race discrimination and White prejudice, even in California. The attempt to do so in this paper is to my mind conceptually flawed.

    While folks can readily admit there are similarities and differences in terms of the history of discrimination against people of color in USofA, who made you the final arbiter on what’s academic studies and what’s hogwash, particularly given James Lamb-Fang’s history of latching onto specious data from questionable sources?

    Everything is about how James Lamb-Fang’s emotions and SJW African-American sound bytes rhetoric.

    the author must specifically qualify the breath and depth of typical Asian American encounters with racist activity.
    .
    .
    .
    The study you cite needs some mechanism to reference this typical background in its discrimination calculus in order for that calculus to remain practical, and I found the absence of that material telling.

    This has already been documented! James Lamb-Fang’s ignorance and disregard for history does NOT mean others are not aware of it.

    James Lamb-Fang throws tantrums by covering up his ears and scream “you can’t prove it to me, you can’t prove it to me” while others are more than nice trying to present data does NOT justify his own ignorance and biases and prejudices.

    we can’t play ‘Oppression Olympics’, because there is no way to render human difference in a simple mathematical formula.

    HYPOCRITE! James “hypocrite” Lamb-Fang goes into crazy lengths to outline the sufferings of African Americans in history, but never experienced it first hand himself smacks of disingenuous spin doctoring to denigrate the experiences of actual African American suffering.

    But everything is about justifying his own ego and SJW politics.

    Asian Americans endured segregation in the West, but that segregation ended as a direct result of the public protest and legislative advocacy enacted by a multiracial coalition led by Black Americans.

    Yet even more of James Lamb-Fang logic fails. If as he contends there were no significant numbers of Blacks on the West Coast/CA then how does Asians benefit from Civil Rights that’s predominantly Southern in scope?

    In no small way, your freedom to view Black Americans as impediments to your political goals exists because Black Americans fought, bled, marched, and died for universal human rights.

    There were civil rights pioneers, and then there were sellouts and collaborators. By making his SJW demographics in such binary black/white terms (literally), it merely serves to polarize extremes into fundamentalism and is never a healthy attitude towards history.

    to view your stance as anything other than race tribalism devoid of history and basic common sense is far too kind.

    Practice what you preach, James Hypocrite Lamb-Fang!

  68. Yet even more of James Lamb-Fang logic fails. If as he contends there were no significant numbers of Blacks on the West Coast/CA then how does Asians benefit from Civil Rights that’s predominantly Southern in scope? — Aardvark

    Because the Civil Rights Movement’s greatest achievements included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both federal laws that improved the entire country, you complete moron.

    Aardvark, stop typing faster than you think. You’re hurting yourself.

  69. @ Snoopy Jenkins

    I find the study you linked problematic

    You find the study problematic because it contradicts your preconceived notions and prejudices, and unlike you, appeals to fact instead of emotion. Had the study produced a conclusion more satisfactory to your prejudices, you likely would have jumped on it as confirmation of your biases. The truth remains that I can produce facts and studies supporting my claims and you cannot because your claims are wrong.

    A further complication between these populations emerges from the fact that many Asian American and Black American Californian residents during the mid-Twentieth Century were immigrants in that state

    This is how I know you didn’t even read the paper. The study isolates its comparisons to those born in California and compares only Asians and Blacks from the state. Had you read it, you would have known that.

    the author must specifically qualify the breath and depth of typical Asian American encounters with racist activity.

    This is yet another reason I know you didn’t read the paper. The authors went into specific detail about the disadvantages Asians faced that Blacks didn’t. If you read it, you could list them. Your ideology prevents you from doing that.

    The study you cite needs some mechanism to reference this typical background in its discrimination calculus in order for that calculus to remain practical, and I found the absence of that material telling.

    Yet another reason I know you didn’t read the paper. The study specifically differentiated the “ancestral legacies” of Blacks as slaves and Asians as immigrants. The finding is that even with harsher treatment for the immigrant-descendent group, the slave-descendent group lags behind even after removal of institutional barriers.

    The fact of anti-Asian school segregation by itself tells us very little; we also need to know how and why Asian Americans withstood such treatment.

    And yet another reason I know you didn’t read the paper. Asians overcame the harmful effects of segregation due to their education and skill level, which were selected for by immigration.

    I think the only reasonable conclusion possible is that it is not possible to compare the treatment Asian Americans and Black Americans received from White supremacy

    Now you are shifting goalposts. First you claim that the treatment of Asians does not come close to what Blacks have experienced, but when scholarly work disproving your claim is presented, you shift your argument to saying that it is impossible to compare the two. I work from facts to conclusions. You work from conclusions to facts.

    Kiwi, we can’t play ‘Oppression Olympics’, because there is no way to render human difference in a simple mathematical formula.

    The study found that Asians were significantly underpaid compared to Blacks, especially when controlling for education and skill level. That is a quantifiably greater level of oppression Asians faced compared to Blacks. If we can compare the experiences of Whites relative to Blacks or Asians, then we can also compare the experiences of Asians relative to Blacks. In California, Asians had it worse.

    Asian Americans endured segregation in the West, but that segregation ended as a direct result of the public protest and legislative advocacy enacted by a multiracial coalition led by Black Americans.

    That’s the fifth reason I know you didn’t read the paper. School segregation in California, which affected the vast majority of Asian Americans, was ended in 1946, before the Black Civil Rights Movement. Desegregation in the West had more to do with World War II and had nothing to do with Black leadership. Stop patronizing us with your made-up narrative about Blacks “saving” other minorities. It’s condescending and even worse, it’s not even historically accurate.

    Asian Americans endured housing and employment discrimination in the West, but that discrimination ended as a direct result of the public protest and legislative advocacy enacted by a multiracial coalition led by Black Americans.

    Now you’ve given a sixth reason you didn’t read the paper. Discriminatory barriers in California began to erode gradually after World War II. Asian American incomes started to grow to match their skill levels gradually after the war, not drastically after the Civil Rights Act or after the earlier Unruh Civil Rights Act. In a state that you claim had next to no Blacks, this had nothing to do with any Black leadership.

    In no small way, your freedom to view Black Americans as impediments to your political goals exists because Black Americans fought, bled, marched, and died for universal human rights.

    Stop being pretentious. Blacks fought, killed, deported, or interned Natives, Latinos, and Asians in America’s racist wars of empire, all the while arguing for Black civil rights. Martin King did not care for the rights of Palestinians. Not a single Black civil rights organization opposed the Japanese American internment. These are all historical facts you are free to ignore at your own aggrandizement. You are only making a fool of yourself.

    Like your easily verifiable mistake on Bill Clinton’s 1997 initiative on race, you’ve every right to be wrong.

    As opposed to your easily verifiable mistake that Asians are immune to racial violence by American security forces, most would argue your mistake was more egregious. You’ve every right to be more wrong.

  70. Snoopy Jenkins’ numerous counterfactual replies in the face of historical data and studies that contradict his viewpoint are a perfect example of how SJWs are swayed by emotion and ideology, not fact and reason.

  71. James Lamb-Fang the equivocator wrote:

    Because the Civil Rights Movement’s greatest achievements included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both federal laws that improved the entire country, you complete moron.

    According to your racist hypocrisy then, there is no civil rights violations and no voting rights violations in USofA this day if indeed there is any supposed “improvements.” Yet the reality is constant civil rights abuses and voting rights abuses and you’ve crybullied and crocodiled tears many times before.

    You’re the racist hypocrite for not even being American enough to respect fundamental freedoms and say that just because something sounds good on paper means it’s actually applied in reality? Your disingenuous BS spin doctoring and hypocrisy got nothing on Trump’s gaslighting!

    Aardvark, stop typing faster than you think. You’re hurting yourself.

    James Lamb-Fang, start thinking faster than you can type. You’re making a mockery of the Civil Rights Movement and denigrating their memories!

  72. @Kiwi,

    a perfect example of how SJWs are swayed by emotion and ideology, not fact and reason.

    USofA is in serious trouble right now, with the SJWs and Trumpkins gaslighting post-truths ‘Murica. T_T

    What’s the rational and fact-driven moderates going to do?

    #MakeAmericaSaneAgain

  73. @ aardvark

    What I find most fascinating is how anyone can believe that a White racist country would be more racist towards Blacks than others in places where “next to no Blacks” live. In parts of America where Blacks were numerous, like the South, anti-Black racism was more common. Where Asians were numerous, like the West, anti-Asian racism was. Unsurprisingly, anti-Native racism was greater on the American Frontier. Likewise, anti-Mexican racism was bigger in the Southwest. In Europe, Muslims were viewed favorably to Jews since the latter was more populous, but now their positions have switched due to the Holocaust and mass Muslim migration.

    Wherever Whites felt numerically and physically threatened by other races and where racial conflict was likelier, that’s where racial resentment was greatest. It’s not rocket science. For political reasons, however, it is more expedient to protect certain races, hence the double standards among SJWs regarding “overrepresented minorities” like Asians. Oddly, Europeans and Americans felt similarly about Jews before World War II.

  74. @ Kiwi

    “What I find most fascinating is how anyone can believe that a White racist country would be more racist towards Blacks than others in places where “next to no Blacks” live. In parts of America where Blacks were numerous, like the South, anti-Black racism was more common. Where Asians were numerous, like the West, anti-Asian racism was. Unsurprisingly, anti-Native racism was greater on the American Frontier. Likewise, anti-Mexican racism was bigger in the Southwest. In Europe, Muslims were viewed favorably to Jews since the latter was more populous, but now their positions have switched due to the Holocaust and mass Muslim migration.”

    I disagree to the “proximity racism” argument to some degree. Unless you are defining racism as physical incidents. The U.S. White majority historically seems to have reacted not only congruent to physical proximity and threat but also to ideas that are divorced from any proximate threat.

    For example:

    – Hating/fearing Asians because of the idea that halfway around the world there are too many of them breeding and multiplying

    – Hating Muslims (regardless of number) because, dating back to the Crusades, Islam was seen as the religious enemy of Christianity

    – Hating Black people as a way of excusing themselves for slavery. They deserved it. We needed to make them work because they are lazy.

    – Hating Native Americans as a way to justify the genocide perpetrated against them. We were just giving the hateful savages what they deserved

    These racist ideas can become popular “truths” even in places where there is no visible population of the hated groups. It just becomes a way of seeing these people, wherever they are, and keeping them out, or driving them out.

  75. @ King

    True. A glaring counterexample to the idea of proximate threat alone promoting racism is the rife anti-Semitism in Arab countries, in which there are almost no Jews.

    My statement is still generally correct, though, but doesn’t delve into specific factors that underlie racial attitudes, such as culture or history.

    Here is a study that shows anti-Black attitudes among Whites is not directly caused by “proximate threat” per se (eg: increasing numbers of Blacks in itself causes Whites to become more anti-Black), but that instead, political and economic incentives by White elites encouraged Whites to hate Blacks (eg: landowning Whites promoted lynchings of Blacks, which increased anti-Black norms).

    The Political Legacy of American Slavery
    http://www.mattblackwell.org/files/papers/slavery.pdf

    Whenever Whites felt their power was threatened by another group, be it political, economic, or military, they accordingly adopted racially hostile attitudes into their culture against that group.

    All the examples you provided involve either a military, economic, or political component, or a combination thereof. It just happens that in places where large numbers of other races were present, the opportunity for Whites to feel threatened were likelier to present themselves, leading to the localized development of racial hostility.

    Even though most Arabs don’t live in close proximity to Jews, they feel threatened by Israel on all three fronts, so their governments and schools accordingly inculcate their people with anti-Semitic views.

  76. Thanks Kiwi, I just bookmarked that study for a more thorough examination later!

    I often wonder how much of racism is “real.” I mean, once you get past all of the B.S. and stereotypes, how much of it is really about racial/cultural clashes, and hoew much of it is just misinformation, bias, and misapprehension?

  77. @ King

    Conflict is real. Racism is not, even if the two come hand in hand.

    Modern anti-Semitism as we know it originated with the Crusades, which as you said, was directed against Muslims. However, the Crusaders felt it was easier to massacre Jews, who were right on their doorstep, rather than travel thousands of miles away to a distant land and fight an enemy they had never seen before.

    Like the anti-Black hatred that has passed down since slave times, anti-Semitism has also passed down to the present day.

    This was discovered in a study which showed German cities that massacred Jews during the First Crusade were more likely to vote for the Nazis. To prove that this was not a coincidence, they used multiple metrics of anti-Semitism, including Judensau sculptures, letters to Der Stürmer, and deportations of Jews.

    PERSECUTION PERPETUATED: THE MEDIEVAL ORIGINS OF ANTI-SEMITIC VIOLENCE IN NAZI GERMANY
    http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/nico.v/Research/Persecution_Perpetuated_QJE.pdf

    The fact that hostile attitudes towards a specific ethnic group can be passed down across generations for almost a millenium, even when said group has been absent for centuries at a time, tells me that racism is taught and learned.

    For clarity, the study’s implication is that even if all Blacks in the US South were to suddenly leave tomorrow, White Southerners could continue to be anti-Black forever. Or even better, if Hitler’s Final Solution had succeeded, anti-Semitism would’ve persisted long after the last Jew was dead.

    The best solution is antiracist education. The main reason West Germans generally became sympathetic to the plight of Jews is because of their schools. East Germans grew up not caring because they were not taught to and even now, many still don’t, especially compared to their Western counterparts. Unsurprisingly, neo-Nazis tend flourish more in what used to be East Germany.

    I suspect the reason people tend not feel as sympathetic towards Asians as they do others when it comes to history, at least compared to Blacks and Jews, is because Asian American history is not taught well. But I think this can be changed.

  78. Damn, Godwin’s Law already? Happy Friday! lol

    Just two thoughts:

    In Israel today, Ethiopian Jews are still extremely discriminated against but they welcome the Kaifung Jews from China. Miss Israel being Ethiopian is remarkable, but how much of it is PR campaign tokenism.

    Also, Iran has a significant Jewish population and history, despite Iran and Israel’s constant saber-rattling to start nuclear wars. And with Trump’s administration of threatening to cutoff UN funding unless it stops condemning Israel, the fact is even more evident that state level charges of “racism” is a tool by which states utilize for political reasons and not simply human rights issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *