So basically the racial minority group who has the largest percentage of members who belong to white collar professions like doctors, lawyers, scientists, wall street brokers, etc are the ones who have "honorary white status".
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 14 May 2008 17:54 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
I have actually felt BAD for some Vietnamese "C" students I have had in college-level Anatomy & Physiology and Microbiology classes. How hard must it be for them to have that "positive" stereotype hanging over their head while they are struggling to do their best to be average? (Nothing wrong with average!) I think "positive" stereotypes can be just as mean and damaging as negative ones.
Many Asians actually embrace these stereotypes, and there are even issues among them where certain ethnicities look down on others who are percieved to be less successful, academically or financially - for example, many Chinese and Japanese Americans look down on Filipinos - if I'm not mistaken, Vietnamese are in a similar situation as Filipinos.
Perhaps I too can teach and inform by offering a different perspective on race and ethnicity.
fwsweet wrote:
Not here you cannot. I will not allow it. The goal of this site is to inform and to become infromed about U.S. racilism. Advocacy of any particular self-identity is explicitly forbidden by the letter and the spirit of our rules. I understand that you feel passionately about the deriabllity of Black self-identity. I understand that people whom you consider non-White are (in your words) trying to become something that thay are not. I do not deny you the right to express these convictions. But you may not express them here in this site. Take it somewhere else. Now.
Please take this advice to heart. Otherwiise, your posting privilege will be suspended.
Frank
I think you misunderstand me. I am neither an advocate of a black self identity nor do I criticize a person's right to self identify. I don't chant "black power" or "down with whitey" or any foolishness of the sort. My problem was with equating education & successfulness with whiteness. My problem is with bestowing this "honorary whiteness" upon ethnic groups by "white America" for supposedly conforming to "white values". My problem is the supposition that one must become something else (white or honorary white) in order to be accepted in America.
I do not believe that in 2008 people are still buying into the foolishness that one must aspire to be white to get anywhere in America, that one must petition "white America" in order to be accept as an equal. You will never be accepted as an equal ANYWHERE if you have to beg for equality. You must demand it and accept nothing less.
You can't blame people for equating Whiteness with financial success and education in the U.S when the majority of people in this country who hold high paying white collar jobs are White. The best universities in this country like Yale and Harvard for example are predominantly White schools. The majority of people on the Forbes 400 richest Americans list are Whites. Face it Whites do makeup the majority of the movers and shakers in this country because they hold most of the power. Sometimes you have to be blunt and can't sugarcoat the truth. If Blacks were the ones who held the majority of power in this country than it would have been Blackness which would have been associated with financial success and education.
Bottom line, honorary white status is generally not bestowed upon individuals - it's generally bestowed upon ethnic groups that are characterized by academic and/or financial achievment/success.
Are you sure? This is really a chicken/egg argument in my view - there is no ethnic group success without individual success and vice versa. Individuals can benefit from or be impacted by negative stereotypes of groups to which they belong (or are mistaken for), but those stereotypes shift over time. It is also true that what I'll call "credit to your race-ism" impacts individuals, even African Americans, in precisely the manner you described: Honorary "white" (colorless) status can be bestowed on an individual. I'll quote a White-identified friend of mine: "Its almost like White people will erase color mentally when a person of color is viewed positively."
I don't remember the specifics of the study but I do recall that there is some research that supports this phenomenon, that Black doctors or lawyers were reassigned mentally from the "Black" category to the "doctor" or "lawyer" category in the minds of White participants who had positive regard for these individuals. If this is true, it would be just as easy to say that non-White ethnic groups that have attained "honorary" or "model" status carved a niche in certain professions that are viewed positively already did so by individual achievement. Every model "minority" group has an example of this: Jewish doctors and lawyers, East Indian IT professionals, Greek and Italian restauranteurs, Irish law enforcement, etc. etc. Even African Americans have done this in the sports and entertainment fields.
I think you misunderstand me. I am neither an advocate of a black self identity nor do I criticize a person's right to self identify.
Your precise words were, "trying to become something that thay are not." As far as I am concerned, people who self-identify as White (or anything else) are not trying to "become something that thay are not." They are merely proclaiming what they truly are. Stop trying to defend the statement that people who claim White (or any label) are "trying to become something that thay are not. It is an indefensible claim in this site. This is your final warning.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 14 May 2008 19:43 Post subject:
Saga,
Generally, I agree with what you're saying, but I might place asterisks in certain places.
For example, I agree with you about the positive view of AA doctors, lawyers, etc - however, I think that they are only viewed upon more positively, relative to other AA's. Everything else being equal, in terms of occupation, education, etc - the Asian doctor, lawyer, etc still comes out on top.
Secondly, I wouldn't exactly say that being an entertainer or professional athlete would give someone a "model" status. Being a doctor, lawyer, business exec, etc requires someone to carry themselves in a way that's not required of entertainers and athletes. In addition, whenever these black celebrities get in trouble - eg, Michael Vick, Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, etc - their behavior is quickly attributed to their race.
Perhaps I too can teach and inform by offering a different perspective on race and ethnicity.
fwsweet wrote:
Not here you cannot. I will not allow it. The goal of this site is to inform and to become infromed about U.S. racilism. Advocacy of any particular self-identity is explicitly forbidden by the letter and the spirit of our rules. I understand that you feel passionately about the deriabllity of Black self-identity. I understand that people whom you consider non-White are (in your words) trying to become something that thay are not. I do not deny you the right to express these convictions. But you may not express them here in this site. Take it somewhere else. Now.
Please take this advice to heart. Otherwiise, your posting privilege will be suspended.
Frank
I think you misunderstand me. I am neither an advocate of a black self identity nor do I criticize a person's right to self identify. I don't chant "black power" or "down with whitey" or any foolishness of the sort. My problem was with equating education & successfulness with whiteness. My problem is with bestowing this "honorary whiteness" upon ethnic groups by "white America" for supposedly conforming to "white values". My problem is the supposition that one must become something else (white or honorary white) in order to be accepted in America.
I do not believe that in 2008 people are still buying into the foolishness that one must aspire to be white to get anywhere in America, that one must petition "white America" in order to be accept as an equal. You will never be accepted as an equal ANYWHERE if you have to beg for equality. You must demand it and accept nothing less.
Generally, I agree with what you're saying, but I might place asterisks in certain places.
For example, I agree with you about the positive view of AA doctors, lawyers, etc - however, I think that they are only viewed upon more positively, relative to other AA's. Everything else being equal, in terms of occupation, education, etc - the Asian doctor, lawyer, etc still comes out on top.
Secondly, I wouldn't exactly say that being an entertainer or professional athlete would give someone a "model" status. Being a doctor, lawyer, business exec, etc requires someone to carry themselves in a way that's not required of entertainers and athletes. In addition, whenever these black celebrities get in trouble - eg, Michael Vick, Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, etc - their behavior is quickly attributed to their race.
wouldn't you first have to be under some false belief that doctors and lawyers are not screwing up in equal porportion to society. There was a white doctor in the news so screwed up on cocaine, he stored his stash in his lover's child's baby bottle and she accidently served it to the child resulting in the child's death. Or the black lawyer charged with child molestation.
Alas I feel in today's society there is no hierarchy. Black, white or other...
I also disagree witth Richard's apparent implication (that one becomes White by becoming educated, etc.).
What I trying to say was that ethnic groups that are known for academic achievements achieve an HONORARY white status, i.e., looked upon more favorably than AA's and lower class Latinos by whites.
Then, do you agree that this same "HONORARY white status" is also bestowed upon college-educated "AA's and lower class Latinos"? Perhaps it is not an "HONORARY white status". Perhaps it is just the inherent benefits of being educated. Just a thought.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 15 May 2008 00:27 Post subject:
I'm not under any false notion. When I say that those professions require its practitioners to carry themselves in a way that's not required of entertainers and professional athletes, I mean just that - as for the doctor and the lawyer to which you are referring, I bet are no longer practicing, and never will again.
Mike Tyson, on the other hand, continued to box right after he got out of prison for rape. No doubt, there'll be a slot in the NFL waiting for Michael Vick when he gets out of jail.
Last edited by Richard Miller on Thu 15 May 2008 03:30; edited 1 time in total
Yeah Black rappers and sports athletes are generally not considered honorary Whites for the most part, especially the ones who are always getting in trouble with the law and are considered bad role models like your Snoop Doggs and your Pacman Jones of the sports and hip hop world.
For example, I agree with you about the positive view of AA doctors, lawyers, etc - however, I think that they are only viewed upon more positively, relative to other AA's. Everything else being equal, in terms of occupation, education, etc - the Asian doctor, lawyer, etc still comes out on top.
I think that would be an interesting hypothesis to test. It might also be that AA individuals with high status jobs would receive equal or higher regard since they would be viewed as exceptional. It may be that since the bar is set so low for AA achievement that the average person to be confronted with AA excellence might attribute all sorts of superlative qualities to such individuals. I think Steele talked about this in the past when it comes to AA professors/academics.
I have experienced this "erasing" of my ethnicity and my perception is that once it happens the individual occupies some sort of de-colorized purgatory. As long as I don't do anything to "remind" anyone that I am Black I am treated as though I am not by such people. I have had a person literally tell me that they no longer think of me as Black and it was meant as a compliment. My ethnicity, for this person, was a barrier to myrespectability/positive regard so they had to mentally remove it. Of course there are many people who are able to adjust their view of AAs in light of encountering ones that do not fit negative stereotypes, some who do not have negative stereotypes, and others who manage not apply stereotypes to individuals.
Richard Miller wrote:
Secondly, I wouldn't exactly say that being an entertainer or professional athlete would give someone a "model" status. Being a doctor, lawyer, business exec, etc requires someone to carry themselves in a way that's not required of entertainers and athletes. In addition, whenever these black celebrities get in trouble - eg, Michael Vick, Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, etc - their behavior is quickly attributed to their race.
I would. Perhaps too many current entertainment celebrities and athletes have embraced their roles as cultural circus freaks and/or primadonnas, but my view comes from a broader sense of how AA culture has contributed positively to the U.S. and the world. Many, many millions of people across the world have been directly or indirectly influenced by the lives, actions or work of AA entertainers and sports figures. Oprah is a role model and Black entertainment figure. So are/were Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Robert Johnson, Muhammed Ali, Althea Gibson, Arthur Ashe, Muddy Waters, Will Smith, Michael Jordan, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Zora Neale Hurston, Berry Gordy, Aretha Franklin etc. etc. etc. It is hard to think of American popular culture without paying tribute to an AA who helped define it in some way. No matter how many derelict athletes or irresponsible entertainers are around now, they cannot take away that legacy. It's too long and too historically/culturally relevant.
This takes another common form, with which I constantly struggle: When a non-white person makes a mistake, the mistake often is attributed to race. For example, when I have a white student who does poorly on an assignmentor fails an exam, I think to myself, “That student did a crappy job.” I see a student, not a white student.
If a black student messes up, I have to struggle not to let myself think, “That black student messed up.” If I am thinking about it, I am careful not to make that mistake.
And another one we're probably all familiar with - Master Sergeant Vernon Waters, from A Soldier's Story:
Quote:
He's the kind of boy that seems innocent. Got everybody on the post thinking he's a strong, black buck. White boys envy his strength. His speed. Power in his swing. Then this coloured champion lets those same white boys call him... "Shine" or "Sambo" and he just smiles. Can't talk. Can barely read or write his own name ...and don't care. He'll tell you they like him... or that coloured folks ain't supposed to have but so much sense.
Do you know the damage one ignorant Negro can do? We were in France in the First War. We'd won decorations, but the white boys had told all them French gals... that we had tails. And they found this ignorant coloured soldier. Paid him to tie a tail to his ass and run around half-naked making monkey sounds. They put him on a big round table in the Cafe Napoleon. Put a reed in his hand, a crown on his head... a blanket on his shoulders and made him eat bananas... in front of all them Frenchies. The white boys danced and passed out leaflets with his picture on it. Called him "Moonshine, King of the Monkeys." When we slit his throat, you know that fool asked us... what he had done wrong. My daddy told me, we got to turn our backs on his kind. Close our ranks to the chitlins, collard greens, cornbread style. We are men, soldiers. I don't intend for our race... to be cheated out of its place of honour and respect in this war... because of fools like CJ.
What I'm getting at is that any "model" or "honorary" status AA's may achieve is, at best, fragile. No matter what the negative behavior is, if a white person does it, he only makes himself look bad - because that negative behavior will only be attributed to him as an individual. If a non-white does the same thing - even if it's so much as sneezing all over the place without covering the nose, then behavior is attributed to his or her race or ethnicity by onlookers. I remember once instance, as a thirteen-year-old boy, I went to store to buy a hoagie and a few other things. A black women goes into the store, and starts arguing over the price of a newspaper. She curses the woman at the counter, and walks right out. Immediately, everyone starts looking at me, as if I had some sort of explaination for her behavior.
Marion Barry achieved a "model" status upon becoming mayor of DC. What happened upon being busted for cocain use and possession? He messed it up for AA's who hold "model" status.
I also want to add that very few of those AA's that you mentioned could ever associate with non-celebrity whites who are of equal financial worth, and not be "out of place." For the most part, they are still products of the environment that they grew up in, which always keep them "out of place" in those situations. I don't think one can say the same for Asians...
Richard Miller wrote, "in reality, Filipinos are probably the only ones who actually function as minorities (they're really Pacific Islander anyway) - ask any West Coast Sailor about the "Filipino Mafia," and you'll see what I'm talking about."
What do you mean Filipinos are the only ones who function as minorities?
I know Filipinos who are dentists and doctors and are members of local government. ( I am in my mid thirties.)
How do you come to the conclusion that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders anyway?
What do you mean by "ask any West Coast Sailor about the "Filipino Mafia?" Define "Filipino Mafia" please.
Where exactly, in California-in San Diego because of the Navy base there?
I'm of Filipino extraction born and raised in San Francisco. My father joined the U.S Navy in 1947, and came here back in the 1950s. Most
of my friends are of Asian ethnicities also born and raised here i.e. 4th generation Japanese -Am, 1st generation Chinese Am, 4th generation Lebanese-American etc.
I haven't personally met anyone belonging to the "Filipino Mafia" you speak of.
As to functioning as minorities that really depends on each individual Asian families' immigration/assimilation/acculturation experience.
For example, my family knows Filipinos who a have been here since the 1920s to more recent immigrants. Those who came in the 1920s were either laborers or attended American universities on scholarships with the intent to return to the Philippines to "improve" the functioning of social/government institutions.
Those who came in the mid 50s, 60s also either got scholarships to study in U.S. universities or had joined the U.S. Navy.
The post 1965 Filipino immigration brought alot of Filipinos in the professional fields. Currently, its a mixed batch of immigrants with a variety of backgrounds and reasons for immigrating.
Alot of my Filipino classmates in my Catholic Prep school were children of parents who immigrated to the U.S. in the early seventies. These kids' parents were either nurses, doctors, dentists or engineers.
What do you mean by functioning as minorities? What is your criteria?
What about the existence of Chinatowns,Japantowns, Koreatowns, Manilatowns, Little Saigons?
San Francisco's Chinatown is the most densely populated district of San Francisco, with residents living in cramped conditions amidst fish and produce markets, restaurants. Alot of the older folk remain there, even if they may have relatives in more affluent or suburban areas. The people who live there do not have use English on an everyday basis since the majority of their needs are provided within their disrict.
Japantown isn't as cramped or as visceral an experience as Chinatown.
Its mostly composed of restaurants, Japanese cultural shops. The neighborhood is pretty mixed income, and mixed ethnicities.
The neighborhood makeup has changed since the WWII internment.
Alot of the Japanese who had businesses/ properties prior to the war were not able to get them back and so they went elsewhere.
Tourists may find Chinatown or Japantown as picturesque, quaint and
exotic but these places essentially functioned as Asian ethnic ghettos in the late 19th and early 20th centuries since there were housing restrictions/covenants that prevented Asians from acquiring property elsewhere.
Chinatown composed of Chinese living in the condition I described above
is percieved quite differently from an area that is predominantly AA, even when those AA have more spacious living conditions and in some cases a higher income bracket.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 16 May 2008 16:22 Post subject:
Ahh, I see - is this like the AA outcry at Spike Lee movies, such as School Daze and Jungle Fever - i.e., is "nationalityism" among Asians something that the rest of America is not supposed to know about, or be oblivious to?
I'll address each of your questions.
thea wrote:
What do you mean Filipinos are the only ones who function as minorities?
I know Filipinos who are dentists and doctors and are members of local government. ( I am in my mid thirties.)
I know AA's and Latinos who hold those same occupations that you mentioned. Does this elevate the rest of their respective ethnic groups into honorary white status? No. Neither of these two groups are overrepresented in such professions as business execs, lawyers, IT, etc - and neither are Filipinos, unlike many other Asians.
Here's something interesting to take a look at, when you compare Filipinos to other minority groups, and other Asians (it's not all bad news, BUT - they typically don't fare as well as Indians and Northeast Asians)
http://www.asian-nation.org/employment.shtml
He added that Filipino Americans and Southeast Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented in higher education, though many are not aware of the differences in representations among the Asian races — for example, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino or Chinese — despite stark disparities in their social status in the United States.
That should suffice.
thea wrote:
How do you come to the conclusion that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders anyway?
I'll grant you that there's much heated debate about this, much of which can be Googled where people are arguing over it on discussion forums. But I've got two reasons:
First, as you mentioned, the cultural and linguistic relations to other Pacific Islander.
Second, in accordance with Franks's rule 2.6 - which supports freedom to identify - I can tell you that, as an HR professional who reviews applications and records, and utilizing the social microcosm theory, the majority of Filipinos actually identify as Pacific Islanders. I'd say it's about 80/20 to those who identify as Asian.
thea wrote:
What do you mean by "ask any West Coast Sailor about the "Filipino Mafia?" Define "Filipino Mafia" please.
Where exactly, in California-in San Diego because of the Navy base there?
I'm of Filipino extraction born and raised in San Francisco. My father joined the U.S Navy in 1947, and came here back in the 1950s. Most
of my friends are of Asian ethnicities also born and raised here i.e. 4th generation Japanese -Am, 1st generation Chinese Am, 4th generation Lebanese-American etc.
I haven't personally met anyone belonging to the "Filipino Mafia" you speak of.
To explain the "Filipino Mafia" - it's not the "Mafia" in the sense of organized crime. On every Navy ship, where there is a high number of Filipinos (typically, on the West Coast), there exist's a "Filipino Mafia". Typically, most Filipinos in the Navy are in the supply department - taking care of supplies, money, ship's store, laundry, barber shop, food service, etc. There are many who work outside of this department as well. However, you'll notice that they're always "hooking eachother up" - i.e., more time is taken on their haircuts, they'll do laundry for their fellow Filipinos outside of when they're scheduled to do it, etc. In addition, you'll notice that, until recently, Filipinos were very overrepresented among Chief Petty Officers in the supply ratings - when I say very, I mean that in some of them, they actually formed the vast majority. Yet it was difficult for Filipino snipes to advance. The reason for this, is because among the snipes, Filipinos tend not to have as many friends in "high places" - but they still benefited from the "hook ups" provided by those in the supply department.
thea wrote:
What do you mean by functioning as minorities? What is your criteria?
They are far less likely than Northeast Asians to assimilate into mainstream white American culture - the "Filipino Mafia" is very indicative of this.
What I'm getting at is that any "model" or "honorary" status AA's may achieve is, at best, fragile. No matter what the negative behavior is, if a white person does it, he only makes himself look bad - because that negative behavior will only be attributed to him as an individual. If a non-white does the same thing - even if it's so much as sneezing all over the place without covering the nose, then behavior is attributed to his or her race or ethnicity by onlookers. I remember once instance, as a thirteen-year-old boy, I went to store to buy a hoagie and a few other things. A black women goes into the store, and starts arguing over the price of a newspaper. She curses the woman at the counter, and walks right out. Immediately, everyone starts looking at me, as if I had some sort of explaination for her behavior.
Marion Barry achieved a "model" status upon becoming mayor of DC. What happened upon being busted for cocain use and possession? He messed it up for AA's who hold "model" status.
I also want to add that very few of those AA's that you mentioned could ever associate with non-celebrity whites who are of equal financial worth, and not be "out of place." For the most part, they are still products of the environment that they grew up in, which always keep them "out of place" in those situations. I don't think one can say the same for Asians...
Believe, I see your point and think that what I said supports most of them. Where I disagree is what "model" status really is. Barry was never more than a "Black" mayor even though he was elected by many Whites. I never heard anyone say that Barry had transcended color, as many say about Oprah and used to say about Obama before he was relegated back to blackness purgatory. That's the difference for me.
I also think that association with Whites, for "minorities" is a choice they themselves often make. Overall people associate with others in their social class. In the post-integrated 'states that is mostly people you go to school with and eventually work with. For lower income people of all stripes it is hard to see the where class and race no longer intersect. For affluent AAs it is often a choice to minimize or even avoid the company of Whites, similarly to the approach taken by many Jews, who integrate when necessary but choose to associate intraethnically as much as possible. If I wanted to I could very easily associate with ONLY Whites and all would be on my economic/educational level or higher. The celebrities I mentioned likely have or had a similar experience (depending on the era of course). Since it is often "cool" and/or financially lucrative for the upper class to associate with or patronize Black musicians and athletes I imagine it is also fairly easy for these folks to integrate if they choose to. Of course there will always be circles in which one isn't welcomed because of ethnic background, but that is as true for current model minorities like Asians as it still is for groups like European Jews and Catholics. Some old-money WASP circles still hold fast to old rules, others have widened.
Now you need others to speak your mind for you? Stand on your own man, stand on your own.
Dude, I've been in the game for ten years - "warbird" has been there, done that - taken on multiple aggressors, was a regular in Interracial Voice, participated in the "Check Native American" campaign in 2000, started The Mulatto People, recently brought it back in it's second incarnation, etc - believe me when I tell you this, I've argued semantics into the ground, wasted whole days on the weekend doing it, and I'm finished. I feel like I'm being asked by Bill Clinton what the definition of "sex" is - would YOU want to get into that discussion, since all of that is beside the point anyway?
What I'm saying is this - there are people here that are willing to debate generally accepted sociological phenomena with you. I'm not one of them.
Posted: Tue 08 Jul 2008 16:49 Post subject: Reinventing the wheel
Richard Miller wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Now you need others to speak your mind for you? Stand on your own man, stand on your own.
Dude, I've been in the game for ten years - "warbird" has been there, done that - taken on multiple aggressors, was a regular in Interracial Voice, participated in the "Check Native American" campaign in 2000, started The Mulatto People, recently brought it back in it's second incarnation, etc - believe me when I tell you this, I've argued semantics into the ground, wasted whole days on the weekend doing it, and I'm finished. I feel like I'm being asked by Bill Clinton what the definition of "sex" is - would YOU want to get into that discussion, since all of that is beside the point anyway?
What I'm saying is this - there are people here that are willing to debate generally accepted sociological phenomena with you. I'm not one of them.
Richard, one of the frustrating things about this forum is that we are always reinventing the wheel. People with a long background and activism in "multiracial" issues are often not known to newcomers who didn't do their homework before coming here. It makes everyone on this forum look like peers, and those who know very little may presume to be the equals or even superiors of those who are familiar with all the issues they are just now learning.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
