This is tackling the wrong enemy. One minority who doesn't feel as protected as they should shouldn't attack other minorities who receive full protection. The attack should be on racism at large and not victims of it who in some select cases are more shielded publically. It would be better to have a unified front against racism.
the double standard does not exist for white people period. anti-semitic comments are dealt with respect. any comment that offends jewish people would be dealt with respect and people who made those comments would have to apologize. the reason why racism against asians is not taken seriously is because asians are considered second class citizens, not american, and foreigners. if asians want to complain about anything, they'll say, why don't you go back to your own country? even if you were born here. asians, and any other minority including blacks are always considered over-sensitive. but jews are not considered oversensitive.
Racism of any form is wrong. When I'm playing basketball and a black dude refers to me as "white boy". No biggie. But if I refered to him as "black boy", I would be hanged. WTF? I have a Chinese coworker who is fourth generation here, but will be asked what country he's from. Until Asians become more mainstream or more militant, it'll be status quo. Where is the love? Two Chinese cops Rodney Kinged a black motorist: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/01/BA258785.DTL
pitting minorities against minorities is a very nice strategy that white people have used over the years. if you want to encourage resentment between those two minorities as a way to divert attention from white racism, be my guest.
As far as black boy and white boy go, a little history may help to clarify it. Blacks may call a white person 'white boy' without any ill will or intent behind the statement. But there is centuries of ill will, abuse, and worse when a white person calls a black person 'black boy'.
You are way off base here. I am not promoting any racism between minorities. You speak as if minorities are absolved from having racist views. Every race has some level of prejudice against other races, be it openly or subconsciously. It's not right, but it's people being people. The article is about two Chinese cops beating up a black motorist. Da Man did not orchestrate this as part of his grand master plan to pit minorities against each other. The black motorist pressed charges because he was allegedly assaulted. These are the facts.
look, i know exactly what your intentions are in posting that. that has nothing to do with this topic. yet you brought it up because you want to divert attention from the original subject. you want me to post articles where blacks attack asians so asians and blacks can fight with each other, while you laugh right? minorities can be just as prejudice as anybody else. i never said they weren't. but does that excuse racism against minorities from whites who use the double standard as an excuse for committing acts of hate against minorities? NO! the article just lists them as asian. not chinese.
I'm not saying one whole race is responsible for anything. But unless the parties know each other very well and it's definitely comfortable for the white person to talk like that, then it would be reasonable, and appropriate not to. The reason why this might apply to all members of a race is that when the abuses and insults were given they were based solely on race, and not on individual merit or lack there of.
REMEMBER VINCENT CHIN by: Daren Rikio Mooko July 5, 2002 “If Asian people in America don’t learn to stand up for themselves, these injustices will never cease.” It’s ironic that these words were spoken by Minoru Yamasaki, architect of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, immediately following the ghastly murder of Vincent Chin. Some twenty years later, the Asian Pacific American community finds new meaning in these words in the wake of those very buildings being brought down by terrorists on September 11, 2001. Exactly twenty years ago on June 19, 1982, Vincent Chin, a 27 year old Chinese American, was brutally murdered in Detroit, Michigan. It was during the decade when American car manufacturers were making inferior products to the Japanese car manufacturers, resulting in a depressed domestic automobile market. The anti-Japanese sentiment ran amok in the U.S. and nowhere more evident than in Detroit. Anyone who looked Japanese was personally blamed and held accountable for the predicament of the U.S. car manufacturers. That night, Vincent Chin paid dearly for the anti-Japanese and anti-Asian sentiment. A week before his wedding, Vincent Chin and his buddies went to a local club in Detroit to celebrate, “bachelor party” style. At this club, Ron Ebens, a supervisor at a local automobile factory yelled “it’s because of mother****ers like you that we’re out of work.” A fight ensued which resulted in Chin and his party, Ebens and his son-in-law Mike Nitz being thrown out of the club. Ebens and Nitz jumped in their pickup truck and hunted Chin down. They caught up to Chin, jumped out of the truck and while Nitz restrained him, Ebens took four full swings at Chin’s skull with a baseball bat. In his last moments of consciousness, Vincent Chin whispered “it’s not fair.” Ebens and Nitz did not serve one full day in jail and paid a $3,780 fine for murdering Vincent Chin. Judge Charles Kaufman presided over the initial case and justified this light sentence by saying “You fit the punishment to the criminal, not the crime.” In this judge’s opinion, the life of Vincent Chin was worth only $3,780. Though the case was pursued in the federal courts, nothing changed and in the end, Ebens and Nitz paid only a few thousand dollars for brutally murdering Vincent Chin. Vincent Chin’s murder has become a landmark tragedy because it is commonly thought of as a pivotal point in Asian Pacific American history. APAs from all ethnic and class backgrounds rallied around this case. Students in college courses are learning about this tragedy through the tremendous work of Christine Choy and Renee Tajima-Pe_a in their Academy Award nominated film “Who Killed Vincent Chin.” I wonder, however, as a community, how much did we really learn from the murder of Vincent Chin? The gruesome Chin murder forced us to ask deeper questions and seek more complicated answers. It is elementary to answer the question “Who Killed Vincent Chin;” Ron Ebens and Mike Nitz killed him. But a more complicated answer is white America’s creation of the “Yellow Peril” stereotype killed Vincent Chin. The anti-Japanese and anti-Asian fervor in the U.S. reached levels not seen since Pearl Harbor. Corporations, elected officials and celebrities alike were drawing comparisons between the sudden rise in Japanese automobiles to the invasion of Pearl Harbor. The Chin case forced us to ask questions about how as a community we interfaced with the state and the courts when our civil rights were violated. Have we successfully and faithfully applied these lessons since his murder? The 1992 L.A. uprising forced us to ask questions about not only how as an APA community we interface with the state and the courts, but how we interface with other communities as well. The questions that might have gotten lost in the shuffle centered around what conditions existed and were put in place to create the circumstances that pit African Americans against Korean Americans ? In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, have we failed to ask the deeper and broader questions that the Chin murder case taught us to ask? Where was the massive public outrage over the 1,400+ Arab, Arab Americans, Middle Easterners and other “non-whites” being detained without regard to their civil rights? How critical have we been to the steady flow of legislation being passed in the name of “homeland security” that violates our basic civil rights? While it was refreshing to see the general outcry over the racist Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts, it was also disheartening to see the lack of critique and outrage over the larger issues. Did we demand A&F discontinue their sweatshop labor practices in Saipan with as much voracity as we demanded they simply remove the shirts from the shelves? What about the multiple levels of the corporate ladder that this racist line of apparel passed through to make its way to the store shelves? What racist conditions exist in the A&F corporation that made them think that not only was this racist line of apparel acceptable, but also profitable? Many cities across the U.S. (Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York) are commemorating the 20 year anniversary of the Vincent Chin murder. What makes these commemorations even more solemn is that Vincent’s mother Lily passed away just last week. Mrs. Lily Chin emerged as the unlikely lightening rod for civil rights in the Asian Pacific American community – a title and responsibility I suspect she never wanted. As we take time to remember the brutal murder of Vincent Chin and the memory of his mother Lily, I urge each of us to recommit to asking those critical questions concerning our everyday surroundings. We must make sure that it will not take another ghastly murder in our community for us to rediscover our ability and responsibility to ask the difficult questions, work to seek the answers (however complicated they may be) and once and for all, assert our civil rights.
The Right to Self-Defense in Washington Minh Hong stabbed to death Chris Kinison, a young white man, on July 4 in Ocean Resort, Washington. Minh is charged with first degree manslaughter. Racism and Police Failure The only problem was that Chris Kinison was a white racist, who spent the better part of the weekend as part of a group beating up on minorities visiting the resort town. The day before, they had chased two Filipino families out of town. They punched in their windows and challenged them to fight. They had also chased a Black man down the beach with a knife. So it was no coincidence that when Minh, a Vietnamese immigrant, and Chris met in a gas station, the latter was part of a group. He was shouting "gooks go home," "white power" and waving a Confederate flag. Chris was also punching the face of Minh's brother Hung. Minh retrieved two kitchen knives from the gas station and killed Chris. Asian American organizations have pointed out the failure of police to arrest the white racists earlier and the fact that Chris was six feet tall while Minh is six inches shorter. Choosing Self-Defense Asian Americans have the same right to self-defense for life and liberty as any other Americans. White racism has grown & and Asian Americans like Joseph Ileto in Los Angeles and others have died as its victims – as demographic change has spread through the US. If the police tend to overlook white racism, Asian Americans can only defend life and limb or continue to die. On the other hand, David Jensen of the National Organization for European-American Rights asks "Is it now acceptable for minorities to kill European-Americans for calling them names?" Well, if they're doing it with their fists, Dave, we hope that the answer is yes.
Although laws have been passed and more strictly enforced that would lead many to believe that the blatant racism of the past no longer exists, what is clear indeed is that the racist attitudes of the past have not changed. In fact, for those who believe that America is becoming a more tolerant society, hate crimes against Asians have been on a steady rise over the past couple decades, according to figures gathered by the National Asian Pacific American Legal Center (NAPALC). The NAPALC cites that from 1993 to 1995, hate crimes against Asian Americans rose by a whopping 37 percent. In 1999, there were 486 anti-Asian American crimes, a 13 percent increase over the previous year. What is particularly disturbing about this rise is that the Department of Justice's 1999 annual crime victimization report concluded that total violent crime rates had actually fallen by 10 percent.
Negative! You're delusional if you think I was trying to divert attention from racist white kids. I'm easily amused, but I don't get any satisfaction when minorities fight each other. You need to stop lumping all white people as the racist borg. I'm using my own experiences and observations about the double standard. You're reaching if you think I'm giving approval of white youths beating up on Chinese kids. I wish those punks were punished to the full extent. End of discussion, Da Man needs me to finish some reports.
So what happened to this case? The original trial ended in a mistrial. Did the prosecution pursue a new trial or did Hong go free? Whoops, I found it. The all-white jury was hung 11-1 in facor of acquittal. The DA elected NOT to pursue a new trial.
then why post an article that has nothing to do with this topic? there are racist whites and there are racist minorities. when did the "man" enter the discussion? the only one that is delusional is you. all minorities have committed acts of hate against other minorities before. and what does that have to do with this topic? also when did i say anything about all white people being racist? i am discussing why hate crime laws are necessary. this whole discussion got off track when we started to talk about white double standards. some people in denial started arguing with me about nonsense. minorities can be just as prejudice as anybody else. i never said they weren't. but does that excuse racism against minorities from whites who use the double standard as an excuse for committing acts of hate against minorities? NO! the fact of the matter is that the double standard does not exist for white people. jewish people have their racial concerns dealt with respect and they are not considered oversensitive. but if it happens to an asian, or black or any other minority, they're considered oversensitive. that's the main double standard. read about hate crimes: Why Hate Crimes Laws Are Constitutional By Elena Kagan Excerpted from "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" University of Chicago Law Review Spring 1996 Hate-crimes laws, as usually written, provide for the enhancement of penalties when a specified crime (say, assault) is committed because of the victim's race, religion, or other listed characteristic. In Wisconsin v Mitchell, the [U.S. Supreme] Court unanimously ruled that these laws present no First Amendment issue.... The key [to the Court's Mitchell decision] lies in the fact that the typical hate-crimes law -- unlike a hate-speech law, as in R.A.V. [v. City of St. Paul] -- is an incidental restraint. On its face, the hate-crimes law targets not only speech, but a range of activity; it applies regardless whether the conduct at issue expresses a message. In this way, a hate-crimes law functions in the same way as any discrimination law -- for example, in the sphere of employment relations. When an employer fires an employee on the basis of race, the government may impose sanctions whether or not speech accompanies or itself effects the discharge; whatever speech is involved is incidental to the activity (race-based discharge) that the law condemns. The government may do the same when one person assaults another on the basis of race, again whether or not speech accompanies the conduct; a penalty enhancement may follow because it is pegged to conduct (race-based assault) that the state is attempting to prevent irrespective whether it has an expressive component. In both cases, the generality of the law provides a qualified assurance that disapproval of ideas qua ideas played no causal role in the legislative process. One objection to this analysis might focus on the extent to which speech -- more, speech of a certain kind -- accompanies the prohibited conduct: if racist expression always or almost always is associated with race-based assault, then proscribing the activity amounts to proscribing the expression, with all the constitutional issues such a policy raises. In such a case, the so-called generally applicable law is not generally applicable after all; because the law applies only to certain expressive activity, the reasons for trusting the law disappear. But I do not think this description accurately characterizes hate-crimes laws, which ban conduct that may and often does occur independent of expression; indeed, persons committing race-based crimes may try hard to conceal, rather than express, the racism inherent in the conduct. Here, communication is neither so integral to nor so coincidental with the condemned activity as to reverse the usual presumption supporting generally applicable regulations. A second objection to the analysis might point to the uneven way in which a hate-crimes law affects speech (when it does affect speech), effectively barring racist ideas and not others. There is no way to deny this skewing effect, and if it matters, then it calls for reversal of Mitchell. But I think it should not make such a difference. Many generally applicable laws affect speech in an asymmetrical way, as the conduct proscribed captures the expression of only certain messages. Consider, for example, what kind of speech is likely to accompany a race-based discharge. But if the law applies to conduct generally, the critical barrier to the intrusion of illicit motive remains intact. That barrier is the focus of the law on acts irrespective of expression -- a focus that usually prevents attitudes toward a message from influencing the legislative outcome. Again, then, the usual principles applicable to incidental restrictions seem to hold with respect to hate-crimes statutes. The last objection to the analysis also is the strongest: that the only rational justification for a hate-crimes law relates to the message the proscribed activity conveys. The Court rightly saw flag-burning laws in this light -- as an effort, underneath the cover of an incidental restraint, to suppress communication of a message. Perhaps the same argument applies to hate-crimes laws; indeed, the Court in Mitchell, though upholding such a law, understood it in much this way, pointing to interests the government had in restricting expression of racist messages. But this view of hate-crimes laws is not necessary. The government may have a non-speech-related interest for sanctioning race-based assault, no less than race-based discharge: an interest in eradicating racially based forms of disadvantage -- in preventing disproportionate harm from falling, by virtue of status alone, on members of a racial group. Given this interest, existing apart from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as laws of general application. Kagan is a Professor at Harvard Law School.
It is true that there is double standard. You have pointed out the passive natures (more accurately, cultures) of Asian peoples. Asians have been operating in this country for a long time without political protection. But they are generally better off than other minority groups other than the Jews (but Jew are at least white and they have a lot more political clout). Political rights have their place and should be fought for. But I've always believed that the best way to improve your ethnic group's condition is not politics, but work ethics, strong families, and the priority of education for the young.
Sometimes. I try not see some people lives more important than others. Plus capital murder involves other crimes. Also, a lot if it has to do with protecting the system itself, not the actual victim. Doesn't degrees of murder involve intent, not motivation? (I really don't know much legal stuff, I'm thinking about this more in moral terms) I know what you are getting at, but it just seems strange to say that malicously attacking a person for one reason is worse or better than another. It can be insulting.
